You might also be interested in
Replies (2)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Catch all legislation is necessarily bad law
While I do not know enough about the subject matter to comment specifically, I do have a general grouse.
Anti-avoidance legislation should be targeted so as to prevent abuse of the intention of the legislation without influencing genuine commercial transactions to which the law was not intended to apply.
I have all to often had to advise on restructuring straight forward deals - not to avoid a fair tax charge, but to avoid the possibility of the imposition of a penal provision intended for a quite different situation. This has lead to increased costs and inconvenience to my clients. It is this that is wrong with the poorly (or cynically?) drafted legislation we have seen so much of recently.
Depressing, but not for the reasons given
I note Ian Maston says "this government's depressingly common strategy of introducing "catch all" anti-avoidance legislation to tackle obscure avoidance has been confirmed."
I note from his firm's web site that they say "Specialist advice and sensible planning can play a vital role in helping reduce or even eliminate the inheritance tax liability on your estate. Our estate planning and trusts team takes a strategic approach to exploit tax saving opportunities while steering clear of anti-avoidance legislation - offering valuable peace of mind for you, your family and dependents."
Is it surprising he's depressed? He wants to exploit tax rules and knows that strong anti avoidance legisltaion makes that commercially impossible.
Which is very welcome news for all who want to practice tax within the spirit of the law, because that's exactly what strong catch all anti avoidance provisions require others to do, and that means a level playing field for all tax payers. Anyone who believes in social justice must welcome that.