.png)
.png)
An argument in favour of a broader general anti-abuse rule that applies to HMRC as well as to taxpayers
KEY POINTS
- The taxation of life assurance policies appears to be a catalyst for anti-abuse legislation.
- The recent case of Lobler v HMRC demonstrates that an abusive tax law can also adversely affect taxpayers.
- Tax legislation can produce outrageously unfair results for taxpayers.
- A “taxpayer’s GAAR” could act as a counterweight to HMRC action.
Rumour has it that it was the Mayes case ([2011] STC 1269) that finally persuaded the Aaronson committee that dealing with tax avoidance could not simply be left to the courts and tribunals and that a statutory general anti-abuse rule (GAAR) was necessary.
It is fitting therefore that it is a sequel to Mayes (Joost Lobler v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 141 (TC)) which has convinced me that we need a broader general anti-abuse rule.
This would...
Alternatively, you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this item in full.
