The\u00a0proposed\u00a0General Anti-Avoidance Rule, published today and written by\u00a0Graham\u00a0Aaronson QC, about which I wrote earlier today, attacks\u00a0arrangements\u00a0with one or more of these qualities:<\/p>\n
(a) \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 arrangements that would result in receipts being taken into account for tax purposes which are significantly less than the true economic income, profit or gain;<\/p>\n
(b) \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 arrangements that would result in deductions being taken into account for tax purposes which are significantly greater than the true economic cost or loss;<\/p>\n
(c) \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0arrangements that includes a transaction <\/strong>at a value significantly different from market value, or otherwise on non-commercial terms;<\/p>\n (d) \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 arrangements, or any element of it, inconsistent with the legal duties of the parties to it;<\/p>\n (e) \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 arrangements including a person, a transaction, a document or significant terms in a document, which would not be included if the arrangement were not designed to achieve an abusive tax result;<\/p>\n (f) \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 arrangements that omit a person, a transaction, a document or significant terms in a document, which would not be omitted if the arrangement were not designed to achieve an abusive tax result; and<\/p>\n (g) \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 arrangements that include the location of an asset or a transaction, or of the place of residence of a person, which would not be so located if the arrangement were not designed to achieve an abusive tax result.<\/p>\n All or welcome; the last\u00a0especially\u00a0so since it is clearly aimed at tax havens.<\/p>\n And all have another welcome\u00a0characteristic: without\u00a0exception\u00a0the drafting notes that the arrangements in question are\u00a0legal\u00a0and\u00a0would\u00a0work but for the new GAAR. The idea that tax avoidance can be made illegal has been established. That is \u00a0massive\u00a0leap forward in thinking.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The\u00a0proposed\u00a0General Anti-Avoidance Rule, published today and written by\u00a0Graham\u00a0Aaronson QC, about which I wrote earlier today, attacks\u00a0arrangements\u00a0with one or more of these qualities: (a) \u00a0 \u00a0
Read the full article…<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[134,107,10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12927","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gantip","category-hmrc","category-tax-avoidance"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12927","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12927"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12927\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12927"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12927"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12927"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}