Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Gendering the International Asylum and Refugee Debate -- Contents -- List of Tables -- Preface and Acknowledgements -- 1: A Gendered Approach to Refugee and Asylum Studies -- Migration and globalisation - Linked phenomena? -- Researching women, gender and migration -- Why talk about gender (and not just about women)? -- A gendered analysis of the asylum and refugee debate -- 2: Who Are the 'Refugee Women'? -- Women asylum seekers in the West -- Women refugees in the West -- Women in refugee camps -- Gender and internal displacement

It has been suggested that Brexit creates opportunities for the UK to become a tax haven with low rates of tax and new tax incentives. The opportunities created should not be exaggerated. On the one hand, some of the actions now being mooted, such as the further reduction of corporation tax, could have been taken regardless of the decision to leave the EU. On the other hand, the UK has played a leading role in formulating the OECD's action points to combat base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS). Moving too far away from this programme would be contrary to stated government policy to counteract aggressive tax avoidance and would be seen as reneging on agreements with the global tax community. The UK's extensive network of bi-lateral double taxation agreements could be placed in jeopardy by changes seen to be out of line with international norms, nor would such changes be conducive to the making of new international trade agreements. Most forms of Brexit would remove some constraints on the making of tax policy in the UK, enabling the government to introduce new exemptions and reliefs without the restrictions currently imposed by VAT directives, the requirement to satisfy the four freedoms, or the state aid regime. But this removal of restrictions on the freedom to make tax policy could lead to a temptation to respond to pressure groups and make rapid changes to the tax system that might well turn out to be ill-advised. Brexit offers some opportunities but also dangers. Any tax changes made need to be part of long-term and principled planning for the tax system as a whole, and tax incentives and reliefs should not be seen as quick fixes.

This article argues that statutory general anti-avoidance or anti-abuse provisions (GAARs) are an essential part of a modern tax system, since specific legislation will not catch every abuse. Properly drafted GAARs with appropriate protections can give administrators and courts an important tool to use in cases of egregious abuse, but the use must be within a legitimate framework suitable for the jurisdiction in question. GAARs are not the appropriate mechanism for a fundamental rewriting of domestic or international tax law, but they are a valuable element of the statute book in the fight to combat artificial tax arrangements.

No case under the general anti-abuse rule (GAAR) introduced in Part 5 of the Finance Act 2013 (FA 2013) has yet been brought to the GAAR Panel or the courts. Nevertheless, in section 158 of the Finance Act 2016 (FA 2016) the Government has seen fit to add a penalty.

This article examines tax avoidance in the context of regulatory and legal theory and developing ideas about corporate governance. Words such as "ethics" or "morality" are frequently called upon within the tax avoidance debate, whilst corporate directors argue that they have a "duty" to minimise taxation within the law. "Certainty" is given great weight and importance as an outcome, and this requirement is often thought to demand specific rules rather than a general anti-avoidance principle. This article concludes that the law should give more direction to taxpayers, especially company directors, on the balance of their duties. This cannot be left to morality but, it is argued here, can be best achieved by a legislative general anti-avoidance principle. It is not claimed that this would achieve certainty: rather that certainty is the wrong test of such a principle. Moreover, a legislative anti-avoidance principle would not, and would not be intended to, remove the need for judicial development, since judges will always have a role to play. Rather, a legislative general anti-avoidance principle would provide the overlay needed to give legitimacy to judicial development and offer a framework in which the uncertainty inherent in any system capable of tackling tax avoidance could be fairly managed.

ax is at the top of the political agenda and many substantial changes are taking place, partly as a response to political and popular pressure resulting in the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan, EU initiatives and changes in domestic law and partly as a result of administrative pressures and the capacity for new technological developments, such as the Making Tax Digital plans. New technology has also had a part to play in ramping up the political agenda as it becomes easier to access and disseminate material and we cannot help being aware of the major impact of recent leaks of vast amounts of information. The rapid pace of change has left many in the tax community gasping for breath. There is also some feeling of lack of direction. As a result, there were so many topics I could have chosen for this lecture that I was spoilt for choice, but one common theme emerged. This is 'trust'.

In the realm of tax law, as in other areas discussed in this book, Lord Hoffmann?s strongest theme has been one of purposive construction. Lord Hoffmann helped to review and revise an approach to tax avoidance at a time when it had moved away from purposive construction toward a judicial rule of doubtful propriety (the so-called ?Ramsay principle?). At one point, however, Lord Hoffmann?s explanation of his approach to construction threatened to create another type of formula - a distinction between commercial and juristic concepts, which proved to be impractical. What might have worked if always in his expert hands would not necessarily work in the hands of others. An approach that cannot be applied at all levels of the legal system is unlikely to be a sensible way forward. There is a tendency amongst lower courts, and those on the ground who have to implement legislation, to look for concrete rules and formulaic guidance. Purposive construction alone may appear to give rise to uncertainty, especially in an area where the purpose of the legislation can be elusive. In such circumstances, references to ?economic? or ?commercial? concepts do not provide the kind of guidance that is sought. This means that, despite the serious intellectual effort and judicial focus that have been brought to bear on the problem of construing tax legislation to give effect to the intention of Parliament, the case law on tax avoidance remains unsatisfactory and resort is frequently taken to legislative ?solutions?. Very often these legislative solutions take the form of specified tax avoidance provisions, but the apparent inability of the judiciary to solve the tax avoidance problem has led also to the introduction of a statutory general anti-abuse rule (GAAR). Lord Hoffmann participated in a study group advising on the development and adoption of a UK GAAR. This suggests an acceptance that the judiciary cannot tackle the problem of tax avoidance resulting from abuse of tax legislation without assistance. The legislative approach in ...

This article revisits the arguments made by John Avery Jones in 1996 for ?less detailed legislation interpreted in accordance with principles.? His plea has been influential but perhaps not completely understood. Recent developments in the UK, particularly in the area of so-called ?principles-based drafting? may not have assisted in promoting this cause. It is frequently argued that real improvements in tax law require a coherent underlying policy, not just drafting changes. Obviously, drafting techniques will not cure a poorly structured tax and so ideally the starting point would be improved policy. But we cannot afford to wait for a total policy overhaul. A different approach to the way we legislate could both improve the way we think about policy and result in better implementation, application and legitimacy in decision making. Principles-based drafting is not a solution to all ills. Nevertheless, it could offer one route, in appropriate cases, to improvement as well as, in other cases, highlighting the need for more fundamental reform. We should not give up this experiment simply because it has not yet delivered total success. No new drafting technique can deliver a perfect tax system, but it is worth persevering with principles-based legislation.