{"id":14332,"date":"2012-02-28T09:16:13","date_gmt":"2012-02-28T09:16:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/?p=14332"},"modified":"2012-02-28T09:16:13","modified_gmt":"2012-02-28T09:16:13","slug":"barclays-has-made-the-case-for-a-general-anti-avoidance-principle","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/2012\/02\/28\/barclays-has-made-the-case-for-a-general-anti-avoidance-principle\/","title":{"rendered":"Barclays has made the case for a general anti-avoidance principle"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>I\u2019ve long\u00a0argued\u00a0for a general anti-avoidance principle in UK tax law. A recent\u00a0briefing\u00a0on this issue is available as\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Documents\/GAntiP.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">\u00a0a PDF here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Barclays leaves me\u00a0more convinced than ever that we need one now.\u00a0\u00a0A\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Documents\/GAntiP.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">general anti-avoidance principle of the type I propose<\/a>\u00a0would\u00a0stop\u00a0this\u00a0because\u00a0if there was, under the \u00a0arrangement I suggest:<\/p>\n<p>1) a series of transactions; which are<\/p>\n<p>2) pre-ordained; and<\/p>\n<p>3) into which there are inserted steps that have no commercial purpose apart from tax avoidance,<\/p>\n<p>then the\u00a0artificial\u00a0step(s) would be ignored when\u00a0calculating\u00a0the\u00a0companies\u00a0tax.<\/p>\n<p>This would stop most of what Barclays and other\u00a0banks\u00a0do in the way of artificial tax abuse dead in its tracks. And that's precisely what we need right now.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I\u2019ve long\u00a0argued\u00a0for a general anti-avoidance principle in UK tax law. A recent\u00a0briefing\u00a0on this issue is available as\u00a0\u00a0a PDF here. Barclays leaves me\u00a0more convinced than ever<br \/><a class=\"moretag\" href=\"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/2012\/02\/28\/barclays-has-made-the-case-for-a-general-anti-avoidance-principle\/\"><em> Read the full article&#8230;<\/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":[2,134],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14332","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-barclays","category-gantip"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14332","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=14332"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14332\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14332"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14332"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14332"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}