The option to tax anti-avoidance rules have always been complex, but do they make the option to tax an endless roundabout or a one-way street? Chris Nyland (Gowling WLG) explores.
The option to tax anti-avoidance rules are flawed. Unwittingly co-opted to facilitate planning (such as option-washing in the self-storage sector); they have a proclivity to clatter benign transactions. They are sufficiently complicated that many cases consider whether a taxpayer could be expected to understand them. And HMRC has over-estimated their power: deploying them in litigation when there were better weapons to hand (such as the unused abuse argument in Principals and Fellows ofNewnham College Cambridge v HMRC [2008] UKHL 23).
But there is a difference between ‘complicated’ and...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
The option to tax anti-avoidance rules have always been complex, but do they make the option to tax an endless roundabout or a one-way street? Chris Nyland (Gowling WLG) explores.
The option to tax anti-avoidance rules are flawed. Unwittingly co-opted to facilitate planning (such as option-washing in the self-storage sector); they have a proclivity to clatter benign transactions. They are sufficiently complicated that many cases consider whether a taxpayer could be expected to understand them. And HMRC has over-estimated their power: deploying them in litigation when there were better weapons to hand (such as the unused abuse argument in Principals and Fellows ofNewnham College Cambridge v HMRC [2008] UKHL 23).
But there is a difference between ‘complicated’ and...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
3cc55f2a-f8bf-4727-a670-dd46c10637aa.jpg?sfvrsn=d6065964_1)
