Tax avoidance continues to attract attention globally with strong support for tax law reform at all levels. This Tax Law IMF Technical Note focuses on some of the key design and drafting considerations of one specific legal instrument (being, a statutory general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR)) which is often considered by authorities to combat unacceptable tax avoidance practices. A GAAR is typically designed to strike down those otherwise lawful practices that are found to be carried out in a manner which undermines the intention of the tax law such as where a taxpayer has misused or abused that law. However, the objective of combating unacceptable tax avoidance can itself make the legal design of a GAAR complex. This is simply because the phrase “tax avoidance” means different things to different people. Whatever the form of a GAAR, it should give effect to a policy that seeks to strike down blatant, artificial or contrived arrangements which are tax driven. However, the GAAR should be designed and applied so as not to inhibit or impede ordinary commercial transactions. This Tax Law IMF Technical Note discusses and explores how drawing a line between those arrangements which should be caught by the GAAR is a matter of degree and can be delicate.
The Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 makes provision for the taxation of taxpayers under the new General Anti Avoidance Rule (GAAR) which is encompassed in section 80A- 80G. This research basically deals with the analysis of the new general anti avoidance rule. Each provision is critically analysed. An anti avoidance rule has been part of the South African legislation since 1941, in section 90 of the Income Tax Act. Section 103 was later introduced to deal with the provisions of the anti avoidance rule because section 90 had proved to be insufficient to combat tax abuses. However, section 103 was repealed and replaced by the current section 80A (under discussion) because it proved to be an inconsistent and ineffective deterrent to the increasing form of tax arrangements. Furthermore, it was stated that it was not in line with international standards and developments, hence resulting in the introduction of section 80A-80G in 1996. The aim of this research is to determine whether the new rule is an effective deterrent for abusive tax abuses by the taxpayers. Furthermore, it aims at investigating whether the new general anti avoidance rule has been phrased in clear, unambiguous terms so as to ensure that the taxpayer, the Commissioner and the courts are clear as to what each provision entails. In general each of the provisions of section 80A of the New General Anti Avoidance is analysed. The research deals with the meaning of the terms arrangement, thereafter tax benefit, 'sole and main purpose, commercial substance, and lastly, misuse and abuse of the provisions of the Act. The analysis of each of the provisions is aimed at determining whether the new general anti avoidance rule is clear and easy to understand. It aims at determining what constitutes an impermissible tax avoidance rule, which in the event that an arrangement or agreement is impermissible tax avoidance, would lead to the provisions of the GAAR being applicable. Furthermore, this research aims to determine whether the Act makes provision for, or rather explains in clear terms, what amounts to permissible tax avoidance. Lastly, after all the provisions are discussed, the research identifies the major weaknesses of the new GAAR and provides recommendations. It has to be noted that regardless of the fact that the new GAAR might have deficiencies, it is imperative that the legislature makes the provisions the GAAR clear by inserting sections in the Act, or replacing certain provisions in the Act where necessary and applicable, so as to ensure that the there is clarity and certainty when dealing with such provisions. Therefore this research is necessary to ensure that taxpayers are aware of the provisions which qualify as impermissible tax avoidance and when the arrangements they enter into are regarded as permissible. In addition, clarity is required to ensure that the taxpayer, the Commissioner and the courts understand exactly what the new GAAR entails, thus preventing the opening of the floodgates of litigation. Lastly, after all the provisions are discussed, the research identifies the major weaknesses of the new GAAR and provides recommendations. It has to be noted that regardless of the fact that the new GAAR might have deficiencies, it is imperative that the legislature makes the provisions the GAAR clear by inserting sections in the Act, or replacing certain provisions in the Act where necessary and applicable, so as to ensure that the there is clarity and certainty when dealing with such provisions. Therefore this research is necessary to ensure that taxpayers are aware of the provisions which qualify as impermissible tax avoidance and when the arrangements they enter into are regarded as permissible. In addition, clarity is required to ensure that the taxpayer, the Commissioner and the courts understand exactly what the new GAAR entails, thus preventing the opening of the floodgates of litigation. Copyright.
This book provides a concise, practical guide to the European Union’s Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD). Presenting unique insights into the ATAD’s five specific anti-avoidance rules, its chapters explain the background of those rules, the directive’s interactions with relevant jurisprudence, and the challenges posed to the ATAD’s interpretation and implementation in domestic law.
This paper examines the introduction of the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR) into the Ugandan tax system in order to combat tax avoidance and evasion. The paper argues that the introduction of the GAAR has had a positive effect on revenue collection and curtailed tax avoidance and evasion in Uganda. It also suggests that the implementation of the GAAR has been hampered by inadequate legal and institutional structures and a lack of public awareness. Furthermore, the paper highlights the need for further reforms and a better understanding of the complexities and implications of GAAR in order to ensure its successful implementation and enforcement.
This book covers all major topics in international tax law, ranging from permanent establishments and capital gains to the taxation of royalties and technical services, transfer pricing, and General Anti-Avoidance Legislation. It also highlights the Indian “story” of status vs. contract by examining four areas of controversy: permanent establishments, FTS (Fees for Technical Services) & Royalty, capital gains, and transfer pricing. The book approaches the subject of international taxation from two opposing yet related perspectives. One is the tax planning perspective, which involves contracts entered into by individuals and companies; the other is that of state regulation through increasingly complex legislation. The area of permanent establishments demonstrates the dominance of contracts over status, at least with respect to Indian tax law. However, some recent judicial decisions in this area demonstrate the susceptibility of contracts to status-related arguments. The areas of FTS & Royalty as well as those of capital gains and transfer pricing demonstrate the Indian government’s attempts to establish, through legislation, the dominance of status over contracts. Whereas traditional textbooks on international tax law focus on the legal technicalities of tax legislation, this book provides tax scholars and lawyers with an understanding of tax planning and tax legislation side by side in each chapter, specifying the respective kind of actual or anticipated tax planning activity that in turn prompted a legislative response. As such, it offers readers a contextual and practical introduction to the complexities of international tax law, as well as an in-depth analysis of the latest debates and controversies in this area.
The introduction of section 245, the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR), as part of the 1987 reforms to the Income Tax Act generated considerable controversy. After an initial flurry of commentary, the tax community patiently awaited both the application of the GAAR by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and its interpretation by the courts. Now that the first judicial stirrings have been felt, it is an appropriate time to reconsider the role of the GAAR in light of developments in Canada and abroad. This book brings together writers who represent a cross section of the tax bar--public and private practitioners, and academics--whose views reflect the spectrum of debate over section 245. The book analyses the text of section 245 and the existing body of case law, and suggests a set of principles for its application. It examines the legislative history of the provision, the case law that led to its creation, the principles of interpretation of tax statutes and tax treaties, and the comparable provisions in other jurisdictions. The analysis is current to December 2001 making this book the most up-to-date resource currently available on the GAAR in Canada. Topics include: The Statutory Context of the GAAR; The Relationship Between Statutory Interpretation and Tax Avoidance; General Anti-Avoidance in the United Kingdom; Development of the GAAR in the Case Law; The GAAR and Canada's Tax Treaties Contributors: Brian J. Arnold, Goodmans; Harry Erlichman, Justice Canada; Ian Roxan, The London School of Economics and Political Science; Livia Singer, Justice Canada; David E. Spiro, Justice Canada; Susan L. Van Der Hout, Osler, Hoskin Harcourt; Marilyn Vardy, Justice Canada; Jillian M. Welch, McCarthy Tetrault LLP; and James R. Wilson, Wilson and Partners. Foreword by Peter Hogg, Professor and Dea
Tax practitioners are unfamiliar with tax theory. Tax economists remain unfamiliar with tax law and tax administration. Most textbooks relate mainly to the US, UK or European experiences. Students in emerging economies remain unfamiliar with their own taxation history. This textbook fills those gaps. It covers the concept of taxes in regards to their rationale, principles, design, and common errors. It addresses distortions in consumer choices and production decisions caused by tax and redressals. The main principles of taxation—efficiency, equity, stabilization, revenue productivity, administrative feasibility, international neutrality—are presented and discussed. The efficiency principle requires the minimisation of distortions in the market caused by tax. Equity in taxation is another principle that is maintained through progressivity in the tax structure. Similarly, other principles have their own ramifications that are also addressed. A country’s constitutional specification of tax assignment to different levels of government—central, state, municipal—are elaborated. The UK is more centralised than the US and India. India has amended its constitution to introduce a goods and services tax (GST) covering both central and state governments. Drafting of tax law is crucial for clarity and this aspect is addressed. Furthermore, the author illustrates different types of taxes such as individual income tax, corporate income tax, wealth tax, retail sales/value added/goods and services tax, selective excises, property tax, minimum taxes such as the minimum alternate tax (MAT), cash-flow tax, financial transactions tax, fringe benefits tax, customs duties and export taxes, environment tax and global carbon tax, and user charges. An emerging concern regarding the inadequacy of international taxation of multinational corporations is covered in some detail. Structural aspects of tax administration are given particular attention.
The General Anti-Avoidance Rule (the GAAR) was originally introduced in Canadian income tax law in 1988 with prospective effect. The GAAR was amended in May 2005 to broaden its scope (by bringing under its ambit the regulations, treaties, etc.) and to lessen the burden of persuasion faced by the Minister in the misuse or abuse demonstration. What is peculiar about this amendment is that it was explicitly stated to have retroactive effect to the date the GAAR was first in effect - September 12, 1988.This chapter discusses the retroactive nature of the amendment of the GAAR. It proceeds in three stages. First, it provides an account of the relevant law surrounding the effectiveness and applicability of retroactive legislation in Canada, outlining the general presumption against retroactive legislation and addressing how express terms can override this presumption in many (but not all) contexts. Particular attention is paid to how Canadian courts have approached the application of retroactive enactments to pending proceedings. Second, this background is used to evaluate the Supreme Court of Canada's handling of the amendment of the GAAR in its first GAAR judgment (Canada Trustco). Finally, the chapter closes with a discussion of the policy underlying retroactivity and the GAAR more generally, suggesting that so long as retroactive fiscal legislation is possible (as it is in Canada) it is somewhat curious that so much reliance is placed on the GAAR. Enacting retroactive specific anti-avoidance rules (perhaps with a penalty) is possible and, from a policy perspective, arguably more effective and desirable at curbing aggressive tax avoidance.
