Judicial Review in the Tax Field: Not a Spent Force

Dominic de Cogan
{"title":"Judicial Review in the Tax Field: Not a Spent Force","authors":"Dominic de Cogan","doi":"10.1080/10854681.2023.2215641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"1. Concern about the width of tax authority powers and their effects on taxpayers is hardly confined to the UK or to modern times. Indeed, the relationship between the public imperatives of taxation (including revenue-raising, regulation and redistribution) and the private interests of taxpayers has long been deeply contentious not only in practical tax administration but also in constitutional and philosophical debates about taxation. Nevertheless, there is something distinctively worrying about the recent UK practice in which new statutory powers are conferred on HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) in each annual Finance Bill, possibly as a way of demonstrating the government’s seriousness of purpose in tackling tax avoidance rather than because the powers are genuinely needed, and certainly without a consistent vision of what powers ought and ought not to be possessed by a tax authority. A number of investigations have been carried out by Parliamentary committees, research institutions and HMRC itself with a view to rationalising or at least reorganising HMRC’s powers, but these are typically overtaken by the conferral of even more powers. They have, in any case, not fully succeeded in fostering a culture of greater deliberation about how best to equip HMRC in carrying out its statutory functions of raising and managing taxes.","PeriodicalId":232228,"journal":{"name":"Judicial Review","volume":"20 S1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Judicial Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2023.2215641","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

1. Concern about the width of tax authority powers and their effects on taxpayers is hardly confined to the UK or to modern times. Indeed, the relationship between the public imperatives of taxation (including revenue-raising, regulation and redistribution) and the private interests of taxpayers has long been deeply contentious not only in practical tax administration but also in constitutional and philosophical debates about taxation. Nevertheless, there is something distinctively worrying about the recent UK practice in which new statutory powers are conferred on HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) in each annual Finance Bill, possibly as a way of demonstrating the government’s seriousness of purpose in tackling tax avoidance rather than because the powers are genuinely needed, and certainly without a consistent vision of what powers ought and ought not to be possessed by a tax authority. A number of investigations have been carried out by Parliamentary committees, research institutions and HMRC itself with a view to rationalising or at least reorganising HMRC’s powers, but these are typically overtaken by the conferral of even more powers. They have, in any case, not fully succeeded in fostering a culture of greater deliberation about how best to equip HMRC in carrying out its statutory functions of raising and managing taxes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
税务领域的司法审查:没有用完的力量
1. 对税务机关权力的广度及其对纳税人的影响的担忧,并不局限于英国或现代社会。事实上,税收的公共必要性(包括增加收入、监管和再分配)与纳税人的私人利益之间的关系,不仅在实际的税收管理中,而且在关于税收的宪法和哲学辩论中,长期以来一直备受争议。然而,英国最近的做法有一些特别令人担忧的地方,在每年的财政法案中,新的法定权力被授予英国税务海关总署(HMRC),可能是为了表明政府在解决避税问题上的严肃态度,而不是因为这些权力是真正需要的,当然,对于税务机关应该拥有什么权力,不应该拥有什么权力,也没有一个一致的看法。议会委员会、研究机构和英国税务与海关总署本身进行了一系列调查,以期合理化或至少重组英国税务与海关总署的权力,但这些调查通常被授予更多权力所取代。无论如何,他们并没有完全成功地培养出一种更深入思考的文化,即如何最好地让英国税务海关总署(HMRC)履行其征税和管理税收的法定职能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Article 2 and Standards of Proof in Inquests: Unintelligible, Unclear, and Unpredictable? Of Codes and Common Law: The Approach to Apparent Bias in Local Government Committees Competing ‘Clear and Unambiguous’ Constructions: Darwall v Dartmoor National Park Authority [2023] EWCA Civ 927 and the Interpretation of Private Acts of Parliament The Curious Case of Boris’ Bishop: Did the First Catholic Prime Minister Fall Foul of s 18 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829? Information Law and Automated Governance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1