Tax Avoidance - Revision history

Ruth Shaw: /* "Tax Gap" */

2026-08-05T11:20:51Z

‎"Tax Gap"

Ruth Shaw: /* "Tax Gap" */

2026-08-05T11:20:22Z

‎"Tax Gap"

Ruth Shaw: /* "Tax Gap" */

2026-08-05T11:18:50Z

‎"Tax Gap"

Ruth Shaw: /* Categorisation of avoidance */

2026-08-05T11:17:14Z

‎Categorisation of avoidance

Ruth Shaw: /* Pro-avoidance rationale */

2026-08-05T11:15:39Z

‎Pro-avoidance rationale

Ruth Shaw: /* Retrospective legislation: Extent */

2026-08-05T11:14:40Z

‎Retrospective legislation: Extent

Ruth Shaw at 11:13, 5 August 2026

2026-08-05T11:13:01Z

Ruth Shaw at 11:07, 5 August 2026

2026-08-05T11:07:36Z

Ruth Shaw at 11:03, 5 August 2026

2026-08-05T11:03:45Z

Show changes

Ruth Shaw at 10:47, 5 August 2026

2026-08-05T10:47:57Z

Show changes

@@ Line 697: / Line 697: @@
 ! scope="col" style="width: 200px;text-align:left;"| '''Subjective<br/><br/> '''
 |-
-| 14.6 || style="vertical-align: top;" | Failure to take reasonable care || || style="vertical-align: top;" | somewhat || style="vertical-align: top;" | no
+| style="vertical-align: top;" |14.6 || style="vertical-align: top;" | Failure to take reasonable care || || style="vertical-align: top;" | somewhat || style="vertical-align: top;" | no
 |-
-| 4.4  || style="vertical-align: top;" | Criminal attacks  || 	|| style="vertical-align: top;" | no || style="vertical-align: top;" | no
+| style="vertical-align: top;" |4.4  || style="vertical-align: top;" | Criminal attacks  || 	|| style="vertical-align: top;" | no || style="vertical-align: top;" | no
 |-
-| 6.4 ||style="vertical-align: top;" |  Evasion   ||    style="vertical-align: top;" |  ''Excluding hidden economy'' || style="vertical-align: top;" | no || style="vertical-align: top;" | no
+| style="vertical-align: top;" |6.4 ||style="vertical-align: top;" |  Evasion   ||    style="vertical-align: top;" |  ''Excluding hidden economy'' || style="vertical-align: top;" | no || style="vertical-align: top;" | no
 |-
-| 5.4 ||style="vertical-align: top;" |  Legal interpretation  ||  style="vertical-align: top;" |  ''HMRC disagree with taxpayer/tribunal on tax law (excluding avoidance)' ||style="vertical-align: top;" |  no ||	style="vertical-align: top;" | yes
+| style="vertical-align: top;" | 5.4 ||style="vertical-align: top;" |  Legal interpretation  ||  style="vertical-align: top;" |  ''HMRC disagree with taxpayer/tribunal on tax law (excluding avoidance)' ||style="vertical-align: top;" |  no ||	style="vertical-align: top;" | yes
 |-
-| 5.5 || style="vertical-align: top;" | Non-payment || style="vertical-align: top;" | ''Tax written off as uncollectible'' || style="vertical-align: top;" | no || style="vertical-align: top;" | no
+| style="vertical-align: top;" |5.5 || style="vertical-align: top;" | Non-payment || style="vertical-align: top;" | ''Tax written off as uncollectible'' || style="vertical-align: top;" | no || style="vertical-align: top;" | no
 |-
-|  2.6 || style="vertical-align: top;" | Hidden economy ||   style="vertical-align: top;" | ''Income undeclared/understated'' || style="vertical-align: top;" | no	|| style="vertical-align: top;" | no
+|  style="vertical-align: top;" |2.6 || style="vertical-align: top;" | Hidden economy ||   style="vertical-align: top;" | ''Income undeclared/understated'' || style="vertical-align: top;" | no	|| style="vertical-align: top;" | no
 |-
-|   7.1 || style="vertical-align: top;" | [Non-careless] error || style="vertical-align: top;" | -	|| style="vertical-align: top;" | no ||
+|   style="vertical-align: top;" |7.1 || style="vertical-align: top;" | [Non-careless] error || style="vertical-align: top;" | -	|| style="vertical-align: top;" | no ||
 |-
-|   <u>0.7</u> ||  style="vertical-align: top;" | Tax avoidance || style="vertical-align: top;" | - || style="vertical-align: top;" | yes || style="vertical-align: top;" | yes
+|   style="vertical-align: top;" |<u>0.7</u> ||  style="vertical-align: top;" | Tax avoidance || style="vertical-align: top;" | - || style="vertical-align: top;" | yes || style="vertical-align: top;" | yes
 |-
 | <u><span style="border-bottom: 1px double #000;">46.8</span></u> || <u><span style="border-bottom: 1px double #000;">Total</span></u> || colspan="3" |

@@ Line 697: / Line 697: @@
 ! scope="col" style="width: 200px;text-align:left;"| '''Subjective<br/><br/> '''
 |-
-| 14.6 || style="vertical-align: top;" Failure to take reasonable care || || style="vertical-align: top;" somewhat || style="vertical-align: top;" no
+| 14.6 || style="vertical-align: top;" | Failure to take reasonable care || || style="vertical-align: top;" | somewhat || style="vertical-align: top;" | no
 |-
-| 4.4  || style="vertical-align: top;" Criminal attacks  || 	|| style="vertical-align: top;" no || style="vertical-align: top;" no
+| 4.4  || style="vertical-align: top;" | Criminal attacks  || 	|| style="vertical-align: top;" | no || style="vertical-align: top;" | no
 |-
-| 6.4 ||style="vertical-align: top;"  Evasion   ||    style="vertical-align: top;"  ''Excluding hidden economy'' || style="vertical-align: top;" no || style="vertical-align: top;" no
+| 6.4 ||style="vertical-align: top;" |  Evasion   ||    style="vertical-align: top;" |  ''Excluding hidden economy'' || style="vertical-align: top;" | no || style="vertical-align: top;" | no
 |-
-| 5.4 ||style="vertical-align: top;"  Legal interpretation  ||  style="vertical-align: top;"  ''HMRC disagree with taxpayer/tribunal on tax law (excluding avoidance)' ||style="vertical-align: top;"  no ||	style="vertical-align: top;" yes
+| 5.4 ||style="vertical-align: top;" |  Legal interpretation  ||  style="vertical-align: top;" |  ''HMRC disagree with taxpayer/tribunal on tax law (excluding avoidance)' ||style="vertical-align: top;" |  no ||	style="vertical-align: top;" | yes
 |-
-| 5.5 || style="vertical-align: top;" Non-payment || style="vertical-align: top;" ''Tax written off as uncollectible'' || style="vertical-align: top;" no || style="vertical-align: top;" no
+| 5.5 || style="vertical-align: top;" | Non-payment || style="vertical-align: top;" | ''Tax written off as uncollectible'' || style="vertical-align: top;" | no || style="vertical-align: top;" | no
 |-
-|  2.6 || style="vertical-align: top;" Hidden economy ||   style="vertical-align: top;" ''Income undeclared/understated'' || style="vertical-align: top;" no	|| style="vertical-align: top;" no
+|  2.6 || style="vertical-align: top;" | Hidden economy ||   style="vertical-align: top;" | ''Income undeclared/understated'' || style="vertical-align: top;" | no	|| style="vertical-align: top;" | no
 |-
-|   7.1 || style="vertical-align: top;" [Non-careless] error || style="vertical-align: top;" -	|| style="vertical-align: top;" no ||
+|   7.1 || style="vertical-align: top;" | [Non-careless] error || style="vertical-align: top;" | -	|| style="vertical-align: top;" | no ||
 |-
-|   <u>0.7</u> ||  style="vertical-align: top;" Tax avoidance || style="vertical-align: top;" - || style="vertical-align: top;" yes || style="vertical-align: top;" yes
+|   <u>0.7</u> ||  style="vertical-align: top;" | Tax avoidance || style="vertical-align: top;" | - || style="vertical-align: top;" | yes || style="vertical-align: top;" | yes
 |-
 | <u><span style="border-bottom: 1px double #000;">46.8</span></u> || <u><span style="border-bottom: 1px double #000;">Total</span></u> || colspan="3" |

@@ Line 697: / Line 697: @@
 ! scope="col" style="width: 200px;text-align:left;"| '''Subjective<br/><br/> '''
 |-
-| 14.6 || Failure to take reasonable care || || somewhat || no
+| 14.6 || style="vertical-align: top;" Failure to take reasonable care || || style="vertical-align: top;" somewhat || style="vertical-align: top;" no
 |-
-| 4.4  || Criminal attacks  || 	|| no || no
+| 4.4  || style="vertical-align: top;" Criminal attacks  || 	|| style="vertical-align: top;" no || style="vertical-align: top;" no
 |-
-| 6.4 || Evasion   ||     ''Excluding hidden economy'' || no || no
+| 6.4 ||style="vertical-align: top;"  Evasion   ||    style="vertical-align: top;"  ''Excluding hidden economy'' || style="vertical-align: top;" no || style="vertical-align: top;" no
 |-
-| 5.4 || Legal interpretation  ||   ''HMRC disagree with taxpayer/tribunal on tax law (excluding avoidance)' || no ||	yes
+| 5.4 ||style="vertical-align: top;"  Legal interpretation  ||  style="vertical-align: top;"  ''HMRC disagree with taxpayer/tribunal on tax law (excluding avoidance)' ||style="vertical-align: top;"  no ||	style="vertical-align: top;" yes
 |-
-| 5.5 || Non-payment || ''Tax written off as uncollectible'' || no || no
+| 5.5 || style="vertical-align: top;" Non-payment || style="vertical-align: top;" ''Tax written off as uncollectible'' || style="vertical-align: top;" no || style="vertical-align: top;" no
 |-
-|  2.6 || Hidden economy ||   ''Income undeclared/understated'' || no	|| no
+|  2.6 || style="vertical-align: top;" Hidden economy ||   style="vertical-align: top;" ''Income undeclared/understated'' || style="vertical-align: top;" no	|| style="vertical-align: top;" no
 |-
-|   7.1 || [Non-careless] error || -	|| no ||
+|   7.1 || style="vertical-align: top;" [Non-careless] error || style="vertical-align: top;" -	|| style="vertical-align: top;" no ||
 |-
-|   <u>0.7</u> ||  Tax avoidance || - || yes || yes
+|   <u>0.7</u> ||  style="vertical-align: top;" Tax avoidance || style="vertical-align: top;" - || style="vertical-align: top;" yes || style="vertical-align: top;" yes
 |-
 | <u><span style="border-bottom: 1px double #000;">46.8</span></u> || <u><span style="border-bottom: 1px double #000;">Total</span></u> || colspan="3" |

@@ Line 217: / Line 217: @@
 ! scope="col" style="width: 400px;text-align:left;"| '''But for other views see'''
 |-
-| style="vertical-align: top;" |    Advancing/delaying:<br/>(a) disposals for CGT purposes<br/>(b) payment of income (eg dividends or bonus)<br/>(c) pension contributions for IT purposes<br/>in anticipation of change in tax rate or residence status || style="vertical-align: top;" | <br/>[[Chargeable Gains#Binding contract pre-departure | Binding contract pre-departure]]<br/>[[Tax Avoidance#Views of non-tax practitioners | Views of non-tax practitioners]]<br/>
+| style="vertical-align: top;" |    Advancing/delaying:<br/>  (a) disposals for CGT purposes<br/>  (b) payment of income (eg dividends or bonus)<br/>  (c) pension contributions for IT purposes<br/>in anticipation of change in tax rate or residence status || style="vertical-align: top;" | <br/>[[Chargeable Gains#Binding contract pre-departure | Binding contract pre-departure]]<br/>[[Tax Avoidance#Views of non-tax practitioners | Views of non-tax practitioners]]<br/>
 |-
 | style="vertical-align: top;" |    Inter-spouse transfer to equalise income || style="vertical-align: top;" |   [[Tax Avoidance#Views of non-tax practitioners | Views of non-tax practitioners]]

@@ Line 431: / Line 431: @@
 Parliament sometimes admits this, by enacting a new relief to allow directly what had previously been achieved by avoidance.  Examples are:
-(a)   Nil rate band discretionary trusts, which allowed transferable nil rate bands before the IHT relief was enacted in 2007.
+(a)   Nil rate band discretionary trusts, which allowed transferable nil rate bands before the IHT relief was enacted in 2007.<br/>
-−
 (b)   CGT group relief to obtain loss relief.  A company about to realise a gain on an asset would formerly transfer it to a group company that had realised an allowable loss. Alternatively, a company which had realised a gain might acquire from a group company an asset which was to be sold at a loss.  That would allow the loss to be set against the gain before the introduction of group loss elections, in 2009.<ref>Section 171A TCGA.</ref>

@@ Line 970: / Line 970: @@
 | scope="row" colspan="3" style="text-align:left;"| <i>Retrospective reversal of avoidance schemes:</i>
 |-
-|    DT relief for partnership || 1987 || [[Partnerships#DT relief: Partnership | DT relief: Partnership]]
+|    DT relief for partnership || 1987 || [[Partnership Tax: Introduction#DT relief: Partnership | DT relief: Partnership]]
 |-
 |     s.23 FA 2012 (loan relationships) || 2012 || ''Not discussed''

@@ Line 517: / Line 517: @@
 See too ''Nourse v Heritage Trustees'' (Guernsey) 15 Jan 2015) at [15] and [71] accessible ''https://privateclienttax.co.uk/index.php/Case_Law_archive''</ref>  It may be that UK tax avoidance is regarded with less hostility in foreign jurisdictions, and especially tax haven jurisdictions.  Foreign courts may also be more sympathetic than UK courts to taxpayers facing unfair or penal anti-avoidance rules.<ref> See [[Appendix 19 Reform of Offshore Anti-Avoidance Law#Critique of s.87 regime | Critique of s.87 regime]]</ref>
-In practice, there has not yet been a case in the UK where a discretionary relief was actually refused on the grounds of avoidance, though here have been some where this has been mooted.<ref>See ''Bhaur v Equity First Trustees'' [2023] EWCA Civ 534  at [75].</ref>   I do not attempt to discuss all the cases where this point has been discussed, but only to assess (if one can) which way the wind is blowing.
+In practice, there has not yet been a case in the UK where a discretionary relief was actually refused on the grounds of avoidance, though there have been some where this has been mooted.<ref>See ''Bhaur v Equity First Trustees'' [2023] EWCA Civ 534  at [75].</ref>   I do not attempt to discuss all the cases where this point has been discussed, but only to assess (if one can) which way the wind is blowing.
 ''Estera Trust (Jersey) v Singh''<ref>[2019] EWHC 2039 (Ch).</ref> was an unfair prejudice case.  The unfairly prejudiced shareholder was a non-resident trust.  The Court ordered the company (“the defendant co”) to purchase the trust's shares.  Unfortunately that would be a distribution for tax purposes, and subject to IT at the dividend trust rate.  The trust proposed a different arrangement:
@@ Line 643: / Line 643: @@
 But in practice discussion is invested with indignation and hatred for those who benefit from or support perceived injustices.  This is fed by a sense of superiority that we are not like these accomplices of evil.  The result is moral panic, contempt and aggression.<ref>This is a danger to which any discussion of morality is subject: see Taylor, <i>A Secular Age</i> (2007) chapter 18.</ref>  There is a great and easily mobilised hostility to anything that can be represented as avoidance.   The remedies proposed become ever more penal and more discretionary.
-The debate sometimes suffers from profound bad faith or hypocrisy.  Politicians accuse others of tax-immorality in order to attack their opponents.   Or journalists do so to sell papers. A example is when the archive of Tony Benn was transferred to the British Library, under the acceptance in lieu scheme, which one might have thought as innocuous as any transaction could possibly be.<ref>Reported by the Telegraph (4 Mar 2019) under the snide headline “Tories praise Tony Benn's financial planning as donation of his archive knocks £210,000 off family's tax bill”.  The article shows some signs of a libel reader's scrutiny, as it falls just short of an allegation of hypocrisy.</ref>
+The debate sometimes suffers from profound bad faith or hypocrisy.  Politicians accuse others of tax-immorality in order to attack their opponents.   Or journalists do so to sell papers. An  example is when the archive of Tony Benn was transferred to the British Library, under the acceptance in lieu scheme, which one might have thought as innocuous as any transaction could possibly be.<ref>Reported by the Telegraph (4 Mar 2019) under the snide headline “Tories praise Tony Benn's financial planning as donation of his archive knocks £210,000 off family's tax bill”.  The article shows some signs of a libel reader's scrutiny, as it falls just short of an allegation of hypocrisy.</ref>
 In 2021, it emerged that:
@@ Line 1,053: / Line 1,053: @@
 So public debate is not uninformed but misinformed.  It is a yeasty mingling of dimly understood facts with vague but deep impressions, and images, half real, half fantastic.  It has more than its fair share of misunderstanding and jejune polemics.
-In these circumstances, media shaming may easily lead away from the Rule of Law. In 2012, Starbucks paid £20m to HMRC following a threat to occupy its cafes.<ref>Ironically, the post-tax cost of the payment would have been diminished as it should in principle be deductible in computing taxable profits.</ref>  If one calls that payment "taxation" at all, it was certainly not taxation imposed by law.  A hostile commentator would call this taxation by mob rule.  Google and Amazon, who are  vulnerable to the same threat, have not had to pay similar sums. Perhaps the point was understood, as the campaign was not repeated.
+In these circumstances, media shaming may easily lead away from the Rule of Law. In 2012, Starbucks paid £20m to HMRC following a threat to occupy its cafes.<ref>Ironically, the post-tax cost of the payment would have been diminished as it should in principle be deductible in computing taxable profits.</ref>  If one calls that payment "taxation" at all, it was certainly not taxation imposed by law.  A hostile commentator would call this taxation by mob rule.  Google and Amazon, who are  not vulnerable to the same threat, have not had to pay similar sums. Perhaps the point was understood, as the campaign was not repeated.
 The reader may agree with the journalist Rachel Cooke:

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 (4)	''Tax mitigation'':  Conduct which reduces tax liabilities without “tax avoidance” (not contrary to the intention of parliament).
-The distinctions between these concepts (especially avoidance/evasion and avoidance/mitigation distinctions) are now commonplace.  They may appear obvious.  They are taught to every student.  No sensible debate is possible without them.  However, the concepts and their terminology have only emerged after a gradual process of development and even now the terminology is not always correctly used.  It is essential to bear this in mind on reading sources on this subject.<ref>eg the 1920 Royal Commission on the Income Tax Cmd. 615 discussed evasion, honest misdeclaration and avoidance in a chapter headed “The Prevention of Evasion”, in which the words “avoidance” and “evasion” were used quite indiscriminately, see para 625.  In earlier editions, I asked whether:<br/>
+The distinctions between these concepts (especially avoidance/evasion and avoidance/mitigation distinctions) are now commonplace.  They may appear obvious.  They are taught to every student.  No sensible debate is possible without them.  However, the concepts and their terminology have only emerged after a gradual process of development and even now the terminology is not always correctly used.  It is essential to bear this in mind on reading sources on this subject.<ref>eg the 1920 Royal Commission on the Income Tax Cmd. 615 discussed evasion, honest misdeclaration and avoidance in a chapter headed “The Prevention of Evasion”, in which the words “avoidance” and “evasion” were used quite indiscriminately, see para 625<br/>.
 (1)  the absence of terminology hampered discussion of the issues or<br/>
 (2)  the lack of discussion or interest led to the absence of suitable terminology<br/>
@@ Line 33: / Line 34: @@
 An avoidance/evasion distinction very similar to the present was recognised very early (and was surely self-evident at any time) but at first there was no terminology, or no agreed terminology, to express it. In 1860 Turner LJ suggested evasion/contravention (where evasion stood for the ''lawful'' side of the divide).<ref>''Fisher v Brierly'' (1860) 1 de G F&J 643 at p.663.  It is a pity that this use of ''contravention'' did not catch on because it is more transparent than ''evasion''.</ref>  In 1900 the distinction was noted as two meanings of the word “evade”.<ref>''Bullivant v AG'' [1901] AC 196 at p.207:
-:“The word ‘evade’ is ambiguous. ... there are two ways of construing the word ‘evade’: one is, that a person may go to a solicitor and ask him how to keep out of an Act of Parliament – how to do something which does not bring him within the scope of it. That is evading in one sense, but there is nothing illegal in it. The other is, when he goes to his solicitor and says, ‘Tell me how to escape from the consequences of the Act of Parliament, although I am brought within it’. That is an act of quite a different character.”</ref>  It is possible that the use of the words avoidance/evasion in the modern sense originated in the USA where it was established by the 1920s.<ref>It is found in the scholarly Sears, ''Minimising Taxes'' (1922), and can be traced to Oliver Wendell Holmes in Bullen v Wisconsin (1916) 240 US 625 at p.630.  It is regarded as basic in Hartman, ''Tax Avoidance'' (1930) which cites two textbook definitions in similar terms.  Perhaps the practice of tax avoidance began earlier in the USA; the first published work on the subject in England was Moore, ''The Saving of Income Tax Surtax and Death Duties'' (1935), the publication of which lead to the enactment of the ToA provisions.</ref>  But by 1936, at least, knowledgeable writers in the UK adopted the same terminology, and castigated those who did not:
+:“The word ‘evade’ is ambiguous. ... there are two ways of construing the word ‘evade’: one is, that a person may go to a solicitor and ask him how to keep out of an Act of Parliament – how to do something which does not bring him within the scope of it. That is evading in one sense, but there is nothing illegal in it. The other is, when he goes to his solicitor and says, ‘Tell me how to escape from the consequences of the Act of Parliament, although I am brought within it’. That is an act of quite a different character.”</ref>  It is possible that the use of the words avoidance/evasion in the modern sense originated in the USA where it was established by the 1920s.<ref>It is found in the scholarly Sears, ''Minimising Taxes'' (1922), and can be traced to Oliver Wendell Holmes in Bullen v Wisconsin (1916) 240 US 625 at p.630.  It is regarded as basic in Hartman, ''Tax Avoidance'' (1930) which cites two textbook definitions in similar terms.  Perhaps the practice of tax avoidance began earlier in the USA; the first published work on the subject in England was Moore, ''The Saving of Income Tax Surtax and Death Duties'' (1935), the publication of which led to the enactment of the ToA provisions.</ref>  But by 1936, at least, knowledgeable writers in the UK adopted the same terminology, and castigated those who did not:
 :In referring to these devices, those who took part in the debates on the new [ToA] provisions in the House of Commons repeatedly used the word “evasion.”  Even the spokesmen of the Government at times allowed themselves this indulgence.  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (for example) described [s.18 FA 1936, transfer of assets] as a “Clause for the prevention of tax evasion” ...  Private members, and on at least one occasion the Financial Secretary, spoke of “guilt” and “innocence” as though the House were discussing the suppression of crime.<ref>Official Reports, 15th June 1936, col. 676, 704, 692.</ref>
@@ Line 389: / Line 390: @@
 : He made no profit or gain as that term is commonly or commercially understood and yet he becomes liable to pay tax which exhausts his life savings and may bankrupt him. That is an outrageously unfair result....
 :This is legislation which does not seek to tax real or commercial gains. Thus it makes no sense to say that the legislation must be construed to apply to transactions by reference to their commercial substance….No overriding principle can be extracted from the legislation....
-:Thus with heavy hearts we dismiss the appeal.<ref><i>Lobler v HMRC </i>[2013] UKFTT 141 (TC). In order to avoid the unfairness the Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, though it had to rewrite the law of rectification in order to do so; see [2015] UKUT 152 (TCC).  The law was later amended; see [[Life Policies and Contracts#Partial surrender trap | Partial surrender trap]]. But that does not affect the point being made here.  For another example, see ''Hunters Property v HMRC'' [2018] UKFTT 96 (TC), where EIS relief was unfairly lost, because a group company was member of a guarantee company which was “merely a vehicle for holding client funds and had no intrinsic value of its own”.
+:Thus with heavy hearts we dismiss the appeal.<ref><i>Lobler v HMRC </i>[2013] UKFTT 141 (TC). In order to avoid the unfairness the Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, though it had to rewrite the law of rectification in order to do so; see [2015] UKUT 152 (TCC).  The law was later amended; see [[Life Policies and Contracts#Partial surrender trap | Partial surrender trap]]. But that does not affect the point being made here.  For another example, see ''Hunters Property v HMRC'' [2018] UKFTT 96 (TC), where EIS relief was unfairly lost, because a group company was a member of a guarantee company which was “merely a vehicle for holding client funds and had no intrinsic value of its own”.
 For another example, see[[Foreign Entities#Capital contribution | Capital contribution]]</ref>
@@ Line 516: / Line 517: @@
 See too ''Nourse v Heritage Trustees'' (Guernsey) 15 Jan 2015) at [15] and [71] accessible ''https://privateclienttax.co.uk/index.php/Case_Law_archive''</ref>  It may be that UK tax avoidance is regarded with less hostility in foreign jurisdictions, and especially tax haven jurisdictions.  Foreign courts may also be more sympathetic than UK courts to taxpayers facing unfair or penal anti-avoidance rules.<ref> See [[Appendix 19 Reform of Offshore Anti-Avoidance Law#Critique of s.87 regime | Critique of s.87 regime]]</ref>
-In practice, there has not yet been a case in the UK where a discretionary relief was actually refused on the grounds of avoidance, though here have been some where this has been mooted.<ref>See ''Bhaur v Equity First Trustees'' [2021] 2023] EWCA Civ 534  at [75]; Herbert, “Equitable mistake and artificial tax avoidance” [2022] PCB 59.</ref>   I do not attempt to discuss all the cases where this point has been discussed, but only to assess (if one can) which way the wind is blowing.
+In practice, there has not yet been a case in the UK where a discretionary relief was actually refused on the grounds of avoidance, though here have been some where this has been mooted.<ref>See ''Bhaur v Equity First Trustees'' [2023] EWCA Civ 534  at [75].</ref>   I do not attempt to discuss all the cases where this point has been discussed, but only to assess (if one can) which way the wind is blowing.
 ''Estera Trust (Jersey) v Singh''<ref>[2019] EWHC 2039 (Ch).</ref> was an unfair prejudice case.  The unfairly prejudiced shareholder was a non-resident trust.  The Court ordered the company (“the defendant co”) to purchase the trust's shares.  Unfortunately that would be a distribution for tax purposes, and subject to IT at the dividend trust rate.  The trust proposed a different arrangement: