PrebbleRoL November Beijing.docx
- 文档编号:11474639
- 上传时间:2023-03-01
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:22
- 大小:32.24KB
PrebbleRoL November Beijing.docx
《PrebbleRoL November Beijing.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《PrebbleRoL November Beijing.docx(22页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
PrebbleRoLNovemberBeijing
Beijing,November2010
DoestheUseofGeneralAnti-AvoidanceRulestoCombatTaxAvoidanceBreachPrinciplesoftheRuleofLaw?
AComparativeStudy
RebeccaPrebbleandJohnPrebble
Contents
1.Introduction2
1.1Theruleoflawandtaxavoidance2
1.2Generalanti-avoidancerules4
1.3Howdogeneralanti-avoidancerulesbreachtheprinciplesoftheruleoflaw?
5
1.4Whyaregeneralanti-avoidancerulesespeciallybad?
6
2.Theunderlyingvaluesoftheruleoflaw7
2.1Guidance7
2.2Liberty8
2.3Humandignity9
2.4EffectivelawandFuller9
2.5Aregeneralanti-avoidanceruleseffective?
10
3.Aregeneralanti-avoidancerulesjustifieddespitebreachingtheruleoflaw?
12
3.1Problemsofincometaxation12
3.2Theimportanceofcertainty14
3.3Themoralityoftaxavoidance15
4.Conclusion18
1.Introduction
1.1Theruleoflawandtaxavoidance
“Theruleoflaw”isacompendioustermforanumberofrelatedvaluesthatpeoplegenerallythinkgoodlawsshouldadhereto.Dicey’sfamiliarformulationheldthattheruleoflawrequires“theabsolutesupremacyorpredominanceofregularlawasopposedtotheinfluenceofarbitrarypower.”Itistheoreticallypossibletointerpretthisconditionasrequiringmerelythatthereshouldbelaws,asopposedtoaseriesofisolatedcommands.Nevertheless,theoristswritingsinceDiceyhavesupplementedDicey’sbasicformulationwithanumberofadditionalrequirementsthatthebasicformulationlogicallymustentailifitistobeofvalue.Inthepresentcontext,themostimportantoftheseisthatthelawshouldbecapableofguidingpeople.Inordertoguidepeople,lawsmustberelativelyclearandtheirapplicationrelativelycertain;otherwisenoonewillknowwhatispermittedandwhatisforbidden.
Thatlawsshouldberelativelycertainseemsatfirsttobeareasonabledemand.Indeed,governmentsgenerallymanagetoensurethattheirlawsadequatelysatisfythiscondition.However,thecriterionhasprovenverydifficulttosatisfywhenitcomestoformulatingrulestocombatthattaxavoidance.
Taxavoidanceisaproblemforeverycountry.Avoidanceisnotevasion.Evasionmeanslyingaboutone’sincome.Forexample,acashbusinessmayunder-stateitstakingsorfailtofileanyreturnoftaxatall.Avoidanceisnotmitigation."Mitigation"isnotatermofart,butinthisarticle,andgenerallyinthepresentcontext,itmeansreducingone’staxinwaysthatagoverningstatuteclearlyencouragesorpermits;forexample,takingadeductionforagifttocharity.
Avoidanceisbetweenthetwo.Avoidancemeans,approximately,contrivingtransactions,typicallybutnotnecessarilyartificialinnature,toreducetaxthatwouldotherwisebepayableaccordingtowhatappearstobethepolicyofthetaxingprovisioninquestion.Thisisadescriptionratherthanadefinition.Terminologyintheareaiscontroversial.Somepeopledenythatwecandrawameaningfuldistinctionbetweenavoidanceandmitigation.Somepeopledenythatthewordmitigationhasanyrighttoexistasameaningfulterminthiscontext.
Asageneralrule,thelawdoesnotrequirepeopletoarrangetheiraffairssothattheyincurthegreatestpossibletaxliability.Whenfacedwithtwopossiblewaysinwhichtoorganisetheirmoney,taxpayersarelegitimatelyentitledtochoosetheoptionthatrequiresthemtopaythelesseramountoftax.Therecomesapoint,however,wheregovernmentsbegintothinkthattaxpayersaregoingtoofarintheirattemptstodecreasetheirtaxliability:
atthispoint,taxpayersceasetoengageinlegitimatetaxmitigationandembarkonunacceptabletaxavoidance.
Usefuldefinitionsofthepointatwhichtaxmitigationbecomestaxavoidanceareelusive.LordDenninghassaidthatforanarrangementtoconstitutetaxavoidance,“youmustbeabletopredicate…that[thearrangement]wasimplementedinthatparticularwaysoastoavoidtax.”Thisdefinitionbringsusnoclosertoknowingwhatconstitutestaxavoidance,becauseallitsaysis“taxavoidancearrangementsarethosearrangementsthatlookliketaxavoidancearrangements.”Nevertheless,thedefinitionhighlightsthedifficultyofexhaustivelydefiningtaxavoidance,or,indeed,thedifficultyofdefiningtaxavoidanceintermsoflegalrulesatall.
Taxavoidanceisperhapsbestunderstoodthroughexamples,ratherthanbyanalysis.Examplesoftaxavoidancetransactionsfromdifferentjurisdictionsabound.Theytendtohaveanumberofidentifiablefeatures,forexample,artificiality,lackofbusinessoreconomicreality,lackoftruebusinessrisk,andtheexploitationofstatutoryloopholes.Avoidanceofteninvolvestaxpayersexploitingrulesthatweredesignedtoreduceunfairnessinthetaxsystemorusingexistinglegalstructuresinenterprisingwaysthatthelegislature,haditthoughtaboutthematter,wouldnothaveapproved.
Tohelptorecogniseavoidance,take,forexample,InlandRevenueCommissionersvBowaterPropertyDevelopmentsLtd,aUnitedKingdomcasethattheHouseofLordsdecidedin1988.Thatcaseinvolveddevelopmentlandtax,akindofcapitalgainstaxthatappliedtolandsalesifthedevelopmentvaluecomponentofthesalewasvaluedatmorethan£50,000.Inatransactionpotentiallycaughtbythetax,Bowaterproposedtoselllandformorethan£250,000toacompanycalledMiltonPipesLimited.
Insteadofsellingthelandasoneparcel,Bowatersegmentedthelandintofiveundividedshares.ItsoldonesharetoeachoffivesiblingcompaniesintheBowatergroupfor£36,000pershare.Landinundividedshareslooksjustlikeland:
therewasnosubdivisionalsurvey.Therewerenoseparatetitles.ThefiveBowatercompaniesownedthelandinonetitle,justasamarriedcoupleownstheirhomeinonetitle.TheBowatercompanieswereasortofmodernmarriagewithfivespouses.Thesefivesaleshadnoeffectonthebeneficialownershipoftheland(using“beneficial”initssubstantivesenseratherthanwiththemeaningthatobtainsintrustlaw).BothbeforeandafterthesalestheultimateownersweretheshareholdersintheBowatergroup.
ThefivecompaniesthensoldtheirundividedsharestoMiltonPipesfor£50,000each.Thatis,eachcompanyboughtfor£36,000andsoldfor£50,000,makingaprofitof£14,000,wellunderthethresholdof£50,000.
Legally,therewerefiveseparatesalesfromBowaterandfivemoresalestoMiltonPipes.Economically,therewasjustonesalefromBowatertoMiltonPipes.Ignoringthiseconomicreality,however,theHouseofLordstreatedthetransactionsasgenuine.Bowateraccordinglyescapeddevelopmentlandtax.
1.2Generalanti-avoidancerules
Typically,governmentscombatavoidancebyaddingspecificandoftenverydetailedrulestotaxlegislation,beingrulesthatfrustrateonekindofavoidancetransactionoranother.Forinstance,jurisdictionsmightallowtaxpayercompaniestocarrylossesforwardandtosetthemoffagainsttheprofitsoffutureyears.Asananti-avoidancemeasure,suchjurisdictionstendtorequirecertainminimumcontinuityofownershipbetweenthelossyearandtheprofityear.Taxstatutesarerepletewithsuchrules.However,specificanti-avoidancerulescannotcombatthemorecreativeformsoftaxavoidancethatemploytransactionsthatgovernmentscannotpredict.Consequently,manytaxsystemsfeaturegeneralanti-avoidancerulesinadditiontospecificones.
Thereisconsiderablevariationintheformthatgeneralanti-avoidancerulestakeindifferentcountries.Nevertheless,thevariousformshaveroughlythesameeffect,atleastintheory.Generalanti-avoidancerulesallowtaxauthoritiestodisregardschemesthatwouldotherwisereducetaxliability.Thetransactionstowhichtheyapplyarevoidfortaxpurposes.Atransactionbeingvoid,thetaxlieswhereitfalls,althoughmoderngeneralanti-avoidancerulesoftenallowtaxauthoritiestoreconstructatransactiontoreflecttheeconomicrealityofthecircumstancesandtotaxthetaxpayeronthebasisofthereconstructedtransaction.
Anexampleofatypicalgeneralanti-avoidanceruleissection99ofNewZealand'sIncomeTaxAct1976(NewZealand'scurrentruleisnotsoreadilyquotablebecauseitisdisaggregatedintoseveralelements,butithasroughlythesamemeaningandeffect).Section99relevantlyread:
Everyarrangementmadeorenteredinto,whetherbeforeorafterthecommencementofthisAct,shallbeabsolutelyvoidasagainsttheCommissionerforincometaxpurposesifandtotheextentthat,directlyorindirectly,—
(a)Itspurposeoreffectistaxavoidance;or
(b)Whereithas2ormorepurposesoreffects,oneofitspurposesoreffects(notbeingamerelyincidentalpurposeoreffect)istaxavoidance,whetherornotanyotherorothersofitspurposesoreffectsrelateto,orarereferableto,ordinarybusinessorfamilydealings,—
whetherornotanypersonaffectedbythatarrangementisapartythereto.
Despitethegreatdifferencebetweenthelegalsystemsandculturesofthetwocountries,thecorrespondingGermanruleistoverysimilareffect:
(1)ThetaxActmaynotbecircumventedbyanabuseofpossiblelegalarrangements.Ifthereissuchanabuse,thetaxpayershallbetaxedasifhehadchosenanadequatelegalarrangement.
(2)Subsection1isapplicableifitsapplicabilityisnotexcludedexpresslybythelaw.
Countriesthathaveanti-avoidancerulesbroadlysimilarinformtoNewZealand’sandGermany’sincludeCanada,SouthAfrica,HongKong,andFrance.TheruleinAustraliawasformerlysimilar,butsince1981hasbeenframedinmuchmoredetail.TheUnitedKingdomdoesnothaveastatutorygeneralanti-avoidancerule,butitdoeshaveajudiciallydevelopedanti-avoidancerulethatcansometimeshaveroughlythesa
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- PrebbleRoL November Beijing