This is a full exam First-class answer, focusing on the topic of 'Tax Avoidance', which is useful for all types of exam question of this topic. I memorised this essay and wrote it in my exam which I got a First Class grade. This essay can definitely help you in scoring, GUARANTEED.
AVOIDANCE: critically evaluate whether the law is dealing adequately with tax avoidance.
Making money whilst avoiding tax is the name of the game. Unlike the illegal
tax evasion, tax avoidance uses legally designed scheme to reduce tax, per
Wheatcroft in “Tax Avoidance”. However, tax avoidance is unethical and has been
developed to a global issue, e.g., the ‘big four’ accounting firms can make billions of
pounds annually by selling avoidance schemes, which causes the government to have
severe loss in tax revenue. Hence, this essay will critically evaluate whether the
current law is sufficient to deter tax avoidance.
Sumption JSC in HMRC v Pendragon argued against tax avoidance as it would
produce inequity between taxpayers and give rise to social cost as it reduces
government revenues for vital public spending on health, education etc. Hence,
HMRC has acted to reduce possible chances for people to escape paying taxes.
Traditionally, the courts in IRC v Westminster allowed avoidance provided the
law is right. At that time, the government tended to use the TAARS (Targeted Anti-
Avoidance Rules) approach: they responded to avoidance by passing new statutory
rules each time an unacceptable scheme occurred. Yet, TAARS was highly criticized as
each reform adds complexity to the tax code, let alone it is not a general solution –
the law is evolving, taxes would have already been lost before the scheme is blocked
off.
The New Approach
Subsequently, the House of Lords in Ramsay v IRC created ‘the new
approach’, which was then strictly adopted by the courts to strike down two ‘circular’
schemes without clear explanation in Ramsay and IRC v Burmah Oil.
Some thought the new approach would only affect circular schemes as there
was no clear explanation. In fact, it also struck down the linear schemes in Furniss v
Dawson. Here, Lord Brightman held that any transaction will be considered as
avoidance if it was inserted without commercial purpose apart from tax avoidance.
Fictitious steps will then be inserted to replace the inserted steps if necessary, to fill
in the gaps as merely disregarding steps left a nonsensical situation as acknowledged
by Mustill LJ in Craven v White. Furniss shows that this included the deferment of
tax liability, not just its complete avoidance.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court (SC) in Tower MCashback v RC unanimously
rejected Furniss due to its rigidity. Their lordships alternatively suggested the courts
to look at the facts realistically and interpret the statute purposively.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller SBB789. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $12.29. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
