Is this justice?:
If the person sought to be taxed comes within the letter of the law he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be. On the other hand, if the Crown, seeking to recover the tax, cannot bring the subject within the letter of the law, the subject is free, however apparently within the spirit of the law the case might otherwise appear to be. In other words, if there be admissible, in any statute what is called an equitable construction, certainly such a construction is not admissible in a taxing statute.
That's basically been UK law since 1869.
There is an alternative. This has been law in Australia since 1901 (tax excepted):
In the interpretation of a provision of an Act, a construction that would promote the purpose or object underlying the Act (whether that purpose or object is expressly stated in the Act or not) shall be preferred to a construction that would not promote that purpose or object.
Which do you think is likely to give the best result?
I think it's obvious that it's the latter.
That's why we argue for purposive legislation.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
This is a mix and match argument, which doesn’t go anywhere.
The Partington judgment states only the default rule of construction, which is not absolute but, moreover, reflects that the function of the judiciary is only to construe the laws made by parliament.
The second citation is exactly what the first is not, and is a preamble reflecting the will of a parliament with supreme law making authority.
The point really being made, as I understand it, is why does parliament not enact purposive fiscal legislation ? It has not, and other common law countries, as illustrated, have taken the same line.
The perceived problem, nor its answer, is present not only in fiscal law making. It is just as much present in some other areas, most particularly the criminal law. (For those of us who deal with tax laws, we may feel we have it bad in terms of the endless stream of ill considered, dross this government has produced, but those in the criminal justice system are also not far behind in what they have had to put up with over the past 10 years.)
Purposive laws have the practical effect, or consequence, of passing power, or influence, from parlament to the judiciary. People might argue that a highly educated judge, unelected but correspondingly free of short termist political influences, would be a better source of sound law making than a modern politican.
But, get modern day politicans to agree to step back from playing with their prized toys of raising taxes or locking up people ? The only even remotely likely way this will happen in our lifetimes is for the entirety of the parliament’s law making sovereignty to be swept away by a federalised Europe.
Andrew
I’m trying really hard to find an argument amongst your vitriol, and can’t.
If you’re trying to say that tax law should not be made by judges, are you proposing abolition of the current role of the House of Lords?
If not, what?
Why not drop the hyperbole and debate the issue?
Richard