Discerning Commercial and Economic Reality: Applying the GAAR to Frucor

IF 0.9 Q2 LAW EJournal of Tax Research Pub Date : 2021-04-24 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.3833209
C. Elliffe
{"title":"Discerning Commercial and Economic Reality: Applying the GAAR to Frucor","authors":"C. Elliffe","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3833209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Even though the New Zealand courts have been interpreting this legislation for over 130 years, there is no doubt that applying the anti-avoidance rules is a difficult task. This is why it is common for judges to come to different conclusions or even arrive at the same conclusion through a different reasoning process. In Frucor Muir J so rightly observed, “Benchmarking against parliamentary intention, for all the appropriateness of the exercise, can be an elusive quest.” This article looks at the development of the general anti-avoidance rule in New Zealand in the specific context of the impending appeal of the Frucor case from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. \n \nThis article begins with an exposition of the test in New Zealand before highlighting the significance of the approach in Ben Nevis from an economic substance perspective. In the light of this analysis, it then examines how the law, specifically the Parliamentary contemplation test, should be applied in expenditure related tax avoidance cases. \n \nThe conclusion reached is that the Parliamentary intention behind part D of the Income Tax Act is to provide a deduction for taxpayers. This deduction, however, ought not to be available when the expense, viewed in a commercially and economically realistic way, is not in economic substance borne by the taxpayer. This is an example where the line between acceptable tax planning and unacceptable tax avoidance is crossed and the analysis above therefore suggests the Court of Appeal were right to consider it in the latter category of transaction. \n \nThe nature of tax planning and tax avoidance necessitates an approach from Parliament that, in the hands of the judges, is both flexible and responsive. After more than a decade since the Supreme Court delivered the Ben Nevis judgment, one can see that the New Zealand legislation and case law is robust, challenging and effective against aggressive tax avoidance behaviour. On balance, despite the lack of commercial certainty, this is desirable.","PeriodicalId":54058,"journal":{"name":"EJournal of Tax Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EJournal of Tax Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3833209","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Even though the New Zealand courts have been interpreting this legislation for over 130 years, there is no doubt that applying the anti-avoidance rules is a difficult task. This is why it is common for judges to come to different conclusions or even arrive at the same conclusion through a different reasoning process. In Frucor Muir J so rightly observed, “Benchmarking against parliamentary intention, for all the appropriateness of the exercise, can be an elusive quest.” This article looks at the development of the general anti-avoidance rule in New Zealand in the specific context of the impending appeal of the Frucor case from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. This article begins with an exposition of the test in New Zealand before highlighting the significance of the approach in Ben Nevis from an economic substance perspective. In the light of this analysis, it then examines how the law, specifically the Parliamentary contemplation test, should be applied in expenditure related tax avoidance cases. The conclusion reached is that the Parliamentary intention behind part D of the Income Tax Act is to provide a deduction for taxpayers. This deduction, however, ought not to be available when the expense, viewed in a commercially and economically realistic way, is not in economic substance borne by the taxpayer. This is an example where the line between acceptable tax planning and unacceptable tax avoidance is crossed and the analysis above therefore suggests the Court of Appeal were right to consider it in the latter category of transaction. The nature of tax planning and tax avoidance necessitates an approach from Parliament that, in the hands of the judges, is both flexible and responsive. After more than a decade since the Supreme Court delivered the Ben Nevis judgment, one can see that the New Zealand legislation and case law is robust, challenging and effective against aggressive tax avoidance behaviour. On balance, despite the lack of commercial certainty, this is desirable.
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
辨别商业和经济现实:将GAAR应用于果实
尽管新西兰法院解释这项立法已有130多年的历史,但毫无疑问,适用反避税规则是一项艰巨的任务。这就是为什么法官通常会得出不同的结论,甚至通过不同的推理过程得出相同的结论。在fruor Muir J . so中,他正确地观察到,“对议会意图进行基准测试,尽管这种做法是适当的,但可能是一种难以捉摸的追求。”本文着眼于新西兰一般反避税规则在上诉法院即将向最高法院提起上诉的具体背景下的发展。本文首先阐述了新西兰的测试,然后从经济实质的角度强调了本尼维斯方法的重要性。根据这一分析,然后研究了法律,特别是议会思考测试,应该如何适用于与支出有关的避税案件。得出的结论是,国会在《所得税法》D部分背后的意图是为纳税人提供扣除。然而,如果从商业和经济现实的角度来看,这些费用在经济上不由纳税人承担,就不应该有这种扣除。这是一个例子,可接受的税收规划和不可接受的避税之间的界限是交叉的,因此上面的分析表明,上诉法院将其视为后一类交易是正确的。税收规划和避税的性质要求议会在法官手中采取一种既灵活又反应迅速的办法。在最高法院作出本尼维斯案判决十多年后,人们可以看到,新西兰的立法和判例法在打击激进避税行为方面是健全的、具有挑战性的和有效的。总的来说,尽管缺乏商业确定性,但这是可取的。
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
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Democracy Avoidance in Tax Lawmaking Recent Administrative and Judicial Developments in IRS Appeals Policy Forum: Promoting Tax Compliance by Regulating the Digital Economy - Quebec's Uber Initiative Supporting Small Businesses in Place Thinking Like a Source State in a Digital Economy
×
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