It could be a bad day for tax avoiders. Hidden in the small print of the Budget press notices is the following announcement:
As part of an approach to develop sustainable responses to avoidance risk, the Government intends to examine whether the option of a General Anti-Avoidance Rule should form one element of strengthened defences. This will be part of wider work on improvements to the tax policy-making process.
There had to be some good news in amongst the gloom today. This is just a small sliver of it. Undoubtedly in the notice to appease the Lib Dem coalition partners such a measure is something the TUC has long argued for - and which is is credited with having promoted in recent years - even inside HM Treasury.
It's an important announcement if followed by action because a General Anti-Avoidance Rule does two things. Firstly it should stop artificial tax planning by basically outlawing it and secondly it should cut down enormously on the amount of tax legislation needed - allowing time to be devoted to more pressing issues of tax reform.
No one should be counting chickens about this as yet, but it is a start
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!
I read your paper on “the great tax parachute”. Two points – you say it is about rebalancing the state. True but people seem to want a Government that is around 40% of the economy, not a France at 55% of GDP. So increasing tax by 100 billion takes us towards a future most don`t want
Second the graph you show from 2002 clearly shows we were running a deficit every year. Yes revenue fell in 2008 but we had a persistent gap so spending does and did need cutting.
Or are you defending free swimming lessons for all!
I’m afraid that I cannot agree with you that a GAAR will be an instant solution to what you call artificial tax planning – which is a point that has been debated for years in courts around the world. If artificiality is what what is targeted, then the Furniss v Dawson doctrine should be able to do the job just as well as a GAAR is likely to do.
The Canadian experience will send the Govt. running as far away from a GAAR as possible while it is likely that the Australian experience may fortify them, provided they throw in a proper advanced ruling procedure.
My guess is that ultimately the HMRC and government will quietly drop the idea, just as happened in 1998.