I [Graham Aaronson QC, the author of the report] therefore see no unfairness in applying the GAAR to an arrangement which is not yet completed before the date when it comes into force; and it would in my view be appropriate to do so.
The General Anti-Abuse Rule (GAAR) has yet to be finalised or to enter the staute books. However the GAAR's guardian has set out a clear warning that it should be capable of operating retrospectively. You have been warned!
Do you agree?
Related posts
- Do you have to organise your affairs to pay the maximum tax?
- The beginning of the end for structured tax avoidance schemes?
- Naive promoters of tax avoidance schemes
- Five facts all accountants need to know about tax avoidance schemes
- Five more facts all accountants need to understand about tax avoidance schemes
Posts
2 comments:
Because retrospective legislation would breach the Human Rights Act. A taxpayer has the right to certainty about the tax laws in place on a given day before making a decision regarding his/her tax affairs.
Sorry 'anonymous' but I doubt your references to HRA or to 'certainty' are relevant here.
No retrospective legislation would be involved. It's simply that the Courts MAY choose a different interpretation to that which Counsel anticipated when 'blessing' the scheme. It happens all the time. If the law was that clear (and certain) there wouldn't be an issue.
Post a Comment