Loading…
Tax law: rules or principles?
The simplification of UK tax legislation is discussed. It will take a great deal of resources to rewrite the whole of tax legislation while it is increasing at the current rate, and when it has been done taxpayers may not really be satisfied that the problem has been solved. With less detailed legis...
Saved in:
| Published in: | British tax review 1996-01, Vol.6 (6), p.580-600 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | |
|---|---|
| cites | |
| container_end_page | 600 |
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 580 |
| container_title | British tax review |
| container_volume | 6 |
| creator | Jones, John F. Avery |
| description | The simplification of UK tax legislation is discussed. It will take a great deal of resources to rewrite the whole of tax legislation while it is increasing at the current rate, and when it has been done taxpayers may not really be satisfied that the problem has been solved. With less detailed legislation, there appears to be more scope for Revenue interpretation, but such interpretation still has to be in accordance with the stated principles. One change needed is to give the Special Commissioners power to review exercises of discretions so as to prevent the need for the taxpayer to pursue 2 separate lines of appeal, often in relation to the same dispute. In Europe, and, more importantly, in the practice of the European Court when interpreting European Community legislation, there is far more attention to principle, with the twin advantages that the rules can be less detailed and the result is nevertheless still certain. |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_reports_231779437</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1750769537</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-g1748-8b36586fe1d4b9fe5d145fbc6117068d9b8b8f69dbe7e72c65ab4e4689ac4ab3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1zM1KxDAUBeAsFBxHH0GoblwVkubn3rgRGXQUBtx0X5L0RipxWpMp-vgWdSUIBw4HPs4RW3HOoRYI_ISdlvLKueQS7YpdtO6zSu7jpspzolKNuZrysA_DtKzbM3YcXSp0_ttr1j7ct5vHeve8fdrc7eoXAQpr9NJoNJFEr7yNpHuhdPTBCAHcYG89eozG9p6AoAlGO69IGbQuKOflml3-3E55fJ-pHLpM05gPpWukALBKwmKu_jECNAdj9Te6_oPehhIoJbencS4dSsuXYCO_AKsZT2g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>839039082</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Tax law: rules or principles?</title><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><creator>Jones, John F. Avery</creator><creatorcontrib>Jones, John F. Avery</creatorcontrib><description>The simplification of UK tax legislation is discussed. It will take a great deal of resources to rewrite the whole of tax legislation while it is increasing at the current rate, and when it has been done taxpayers may not really be satisfied that the problem has been solved. With less detailed legislation, there appears to be more scope for Revenue interpretation, but such interpretation still has to be in accordance with the stated principles. One change needed is to give the Special Commissioners power to review exercises of discretions so as to prevent the need for the taxpayer to pursue 2 separate lines of appeal, often in relation to the same dispute. In Europe, and, more importantly, in the practice of the European Court when interpreting European Community legislation, there is far more attention to principle, with the twin advantages that the rules can be less detailed and the result is nevertheless still certain.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0007-1870</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Sweet and Maxwell</publisher><subject>Court decisions ; Fiscal law ; Legislation ; Proposals ; Simplification ; Tax legislation ; Taxation ; United Kingdom</subject><ispartof>British tax review, 1996-01, Vol.6 (6), p.580-600</ispartof><rights>Copyright Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals 1996</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>780,33224</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jones, John F. Avery</creatorcontrib><title>Tax law: rules or principles?</title><title>British tax review</title><description>The simplification of UK tax legislation is discussed. It will take a great deal of resources to rewrite the whole of tax legislation while it is increasing at the current rate, and when it has been done taxpayers may not really be satisfied that the problem has been solved. With less detailed legislation, there appears to be more scope for Revenue interpretation, but such interpretation still has to be in accordance with the stated principles. One change needed is to give the Special Commissioners power to review exercises of discretions so as to prevent the need for the taxpayer to pursue 2 separate lines of appeal, often in relation to the same dispute. In Europe, and, more importantly, in the practice of the European Court when interpreting European Community legislation, there is far more attention to principle, with the twin advantages that the rules can be less detailed and the result is nevertheless still certain.</description><subject>Court decisions</subject><subject>Fiscal law</subject><subject>Legislation</subject><subject>Proposals</subject><subject>Simplification</subject><subject>Tax legislation</subject><subject>Taxation</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><issn>0007-1870</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1996</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1zM1KxDAUBeAsFBxHH0GoblwVkubn3rgRGXQUBtx0X5L0RipxWpMp-vgWdSUIBw4HPs4RW3HOoRYI_ISdlvLKueQS7YpdtO6zSu7jpspzolKNuZrysA_DtKzbM3YcXSp0_ttr1j7ct5vHeve8fdrc7eoXAQpr9NJoNJFEr7yNpHuhdPTBCAHcYG89eozG9p6AoAlGO69IGbQuKOflml3-3E55fJ-pHLpM05gPpWukALBKwmKu_jECNAdj9Te6_oPehhIoJbencS4dSsuXYCO_AKsZT2g</recordid><startdate>19960101</startdate><enddate>19960101</enddate><creator>Jones, John F. Avery</creator><general>Sweet and Maxwell</general><general>Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals</general><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>GHXMH</scope><scope>HAGHG</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19960101</creationdate><title>Tax law: rules or principles?</title><author>Jones, John F. Avery</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g1748-8b36586fe1d4b9fe5d145fbc6117068d9b8b8f69dbe7e72c65ab4e4689ac4ab3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1996</creationdate><topic>Court decisions</topic><topic>Fiscal law</topic><topic>Legislation</topic><topic>Proposals</topic><topic>Simplification</topic><topic>Tax legislation</topic><topic>Taxation</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jones, John F. Avery</creatorcontrib><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 09</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 12</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><jtitle>British tax review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jones, John F. Avery</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Tax law: rules or principles?</atitle><jtitle>British tax review</jtitle><date>1996-01-01</date><risdate>1996</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>580</spage><epage>600</epage><pages>580-600</pages><issn>0007-1870</issn><abstract>The simplification of UK tax legislation is discussed. It will take a great deal of resources to rewrite the whole of tax legislation while it is increasing at the current rate, and when it has been done taxpayers may not really be satisfied that the problem has been solved. With less detailed legislation, there appears to be more scope for Revenue interpretation, but such interpretation still has to be in accordance with the stated principles. One change needed is to give the Special Commissioners power to review exercises of discretions so as to prevent the need for the taxpayer to pursue 2 separate lines of appeal, often in relation to the same dispute. In Europe, and, more importantly, in the practice of the European Court when interpreting European Community legislation, there is far more attention to principle, with the twin advantages that the rules can be less detailed and the result is nevertheless still certain.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Sweet and Maxwell</pub><tpages>21</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0007-1870 |
| ispartof | British tax review, 1996-01, Vol.6 (6), p.580-600 |
| issn | 0007-1870 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_reports_231779437 |
| source | International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) |
| subjects | Court decisions Fiscal law Legislation Proposals Simplification Tax legislation Taxation United Kingdom |
| title | Tax law: rules or principles? |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T16%3A02%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Tax%20law:%20rules%20or%20principles?&rft.jtitle=British%20tax%20review&rft.au=Jones,%20John%20F.%20Avery&rft.date=1996-01-01&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=580&rft.epage=600&rft.pages=580-600&rft.issn=0007-1870&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E1750769537%3C/proquest%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g1748-8b36586fe1d4b9fe5d145fbc6117068d9b8b8f69dbe7e72c65ab4e4689ac4ab3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=839039082&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |