3 ms·

A British judge, Lord Hoffman commented ‘The only way in which Parliament can express an intention to impose a tax is by a statute that means that such a tax is

A British judge, Lord Hoffman commented ‘The only way in which Parliament can express an intention to impose a tax is by a statute that means that such a tax is to be imposed,’. In other words, for tax there is no distinction between the spirit and letter of the law. They’re one and the same.

Marazan 9y ago
Except the General Anti Avoidance Rule flatly contradicts that. The GAAR takes the spirit of the law into consideration when considering whether the law has been broken. The Ramsey Principle (first stated with respect to a case governing circular transactions) also raises the spirit of the tax law being superior to the strict rules based interpretation.
crdoconnor 9y ago
>In other words, for tax there is no distinction between the spirit and letter of the law. HMRC's essentially disagreed with the spirit was being followed in this case and Google paid up: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35381130 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35381130
gsnedders 9y ago
English law has three typical means of statutory interpretation: the literal rule (where you literally apply the letter of the law), the mischief rule (where the defendant is clearly guilty of the mischief that the law was intended to address), and the golden rule (where you reinterpret as necessary to avoid an absurd result). That said, when it comes to most tax law the mischief rule doesn't apply (because in principle it needs to be dealing with a limitation of the common law). The golden rule rarely comes into play with tax law (though consider the case of murdering a parent and the consequences on inheritance tax, for example). So yeah, the literal rule almost always applies.
- __blockcipher__ 9y ago
  Let’s keep it concrete. Should we force companies to repatriate all foreign-earned profits? If yes, then the US will lose its economic advantage. No international company would be insane enough to incorporate in the US. If no, then we have our current situation. IMO the tax law itself is broken, not Apple’s response to asinine laws. Remember that Apple has not violated the law. I also agree with the comment you replied to - for tax law, there should not be a difference between the law and the intent. What is written is what needs to be followed. And right now Apple is following it to the letter of the law.

Marazan 9y ago

Except the General Anti Avoidance Rule flatly contradicts that. The GAAR takes the spirit of the law into consideration when considering whether the law has been broken. The Ramsey Principle (first stated with respect to a case governing circular transactions) also raises the spirit of the tax law being superior to the strict rules based interpretation.

crdoconnor 9y ago

>In other words, for tax there is no distinction between the spirit and letter of the law. HMRC's essentially disagreed with the spirit was being followed in this case and Google paid up: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35381130 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35381130

gsnedders 9y ago

English law has three typical means of statutory interpretation: the literal rule (where you literally apply the letter of the law), the mischief rule (where the defendant is clearly guilty of the mischief that the law was intended to address), and the golden rule (where you reinterpret as necessary to avoid an absurd result). That said, when it comes to most tax law the mischief rule doesn't apply (because in principle it needs to be dealing with a limitation of the common law). The golden rule rarely comes into play with tax law (though consider the case of murdering a parent and the consequences on inheritance tax, for example). So yeah, the literal rule almost always applies.

__blockcipher__ 9y ago
Let’s keep it concrete. Should we force companies to repatriate all foreign-earned profits? If yes, then the US will lose its economic advantage. No international company would be insane enough to incorporate in the US. If no, then we have our current situation. IMO the tax law itself is broken, not Apple’s response to asinine laws. Remember that Apple has not violated the law. I also agree with the comment you replied to - for tax law, there should not be a difference between the law and the intent. What is written is what needs to be followed. And right now Apple is following it to the letter of the law.