KPMG's new report isn't all bad (form my point of view). Take this for example on general anti-avoidance provisions, of which I am firmly in favour:
Similarly, while statutory general anti-avoidance rules are perhaps unlikely to be introduced retrospectively in most jurisdictions, their introduction for the future may nevertheless mean that expenditure incurred by a company in expectation of continuing tax savings is wasted; in addition, the structures put in place for this purpose may be difficult, or expensive, to dismantle.
That sounds like a clear endorsement of their effectiveness in stopping tax abuse to me. And if KPMG think that, let's go for it I say.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Richard
I tried to read this report, I really did. But in my view it has been written in dreadful academic language which does nothing to make the meaning clearer and takes twice as long to read as plain English, so I gave up. I would suggest the author follows the principles behind the tax law rewrite project for future papers.
Roger
You’re too kind to it
Richard