http://taxadvicenetwork.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-is-meant-by-spirit-of-law.html.
Mark Lee throws in his pennyworth - which is worth reading.
From my perspective this has rarely been difficuklt to determine - but there are none so blind as those who do n0t want to see.
That's most accountants when it comes to this issue.
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 – extract from Mark Lee article
“the interpretation of “spirit of the law” and “intention of Parliament” should remain with the courts. HMRC should not become responsible for legal interpretation, as this confers a quasi-legislative and judicial function on them that contravenes the principle of separation of powers.”
To understand your stance – for clarification, do you agree with the above statement – eminently reasonable to me( but I’m a CA who’s worked offshore for 25 yrs – which makes me beyond the pale I guess)
@eugene
Nit picking
No one is saying a taxpayer is denied the right to challenge HMRC
As a matter of fact HMRC has always interpreted the will of parliament in deciding what cases to take
And so, as a matter of fact, in 99.9% of cases where the courts are not used HMRC will prevails
The Code changes neither fact
What it does make clear is that deliberate breach will be viewed very much more harshly – i.e the cost of being wrong goes up
And rightly so
Richard