I have had no time to comment on responses to the announcement of a review on a possible GAAR (or General Anti-avoidance Principle as I’d prefer) for the UK.
However, Andrew Goodall has done so and it’s available here.
It looks like all the usual philistine commentary is out there already fro the CBI et al.
What I find amazing is that these people say they need certainty. But they create the complexity in their delaings to avoid tax. That’s the paradox they won’t be able to resolve in their positions: they can’t have it both ways.
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!
DO you think such measures could be implemented without a pre-clearance regime?
Would HMRC be adequately resourced to deal with such a regime?
@John
I want pre-clearance
I want companies to pay for clearance
That will provide the funds
And be cheaper and more certain than Counsel’s opinion which is why CBI objections are absurd
@Richard
But HMRC are inadequately resourced to deal with queries on taxes they currently collect.
Would you propose that pre-clearance would be legally binding on the HMRC?
If so wouldn’t this need to be included in your draft change?
How could this work in practice? Maybe it could be outsourced to PWC? 😉
@John
Then give HMRC the resources
Gee, if all probelms were so easily solved
And of course it would be binding, if followed