.png)
.png)
An argument in favour of a broader general anti-abuse rule that applies to HMRC as well as to taxpayers
KEY POINTS
- The taxation of life assurance policies appears to be a catalyst for anti-abuse legislation.
- The recent case of Lobler v HMRC demonstrates that an abusive tax law can also adversely affect taxpayers.
- Tax legislation can produce outrageously unfair results for taxpayers.
- A “taxpayer’s GAAR” could act as a counterweight to HMRC action.
Rumour has it that it was the Mayes case ([2011] STC 1269) that finally persuaded the Aaronson committee that dealing with tax avoidance could not simply be left to the courts and tribunals and that a statutory general anti-abuse rule (GAAR) was necessary.
It is fitting therefore that it is a sequel to Mayes (Joost Lobler v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 141 (TC)) which has convinced me that we need a broader general anti-abuse rule.
This would be...
Alternatively, you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this item in full.
Please reach out to customer services at +44 (0) 330 161 1234 or 'customer.services@lexisnexis.co.uk' for further assistance.
