Correspondence
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1964.tb01026.x |
| Date | 01 March 1964 |
| Published date | 01 March 1964 |
254
THE
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
Vor,.
27
reviewer regards both of them as wrongly decided but this cannot serve as
an excuse from the editor’s point
of
view since he states that the book is
designed specifically for practitioners and disdains criticism of the decisions
which “appear to me
to
have, from the point of view of the practitioner, no
value
at
all.”
Hence it is not, unfortunately, possible unreservedly to welcome this
edition of
Maasdorp
on Contracts,
though it certainly represents
a
great
advance on its predecessor. A.
M.
HONOR^.
CORRESPONDENCE
THE
EDITOR,
Sir,
Mr.
Robert Stevens in his notel on the
Basic
Blag
case2 suggests that
the courts interpret income tax legislation with benign benevolence in favour
of the taxpayer and cites for his proposition the highwater mark
of
tax
avoidance-the
Duke
of
Westmimter‘s
case.8
So
far
so
good. He states,
however, that “This attitude of strict legality, drawn in favour
of
the tax-
payer, has been maintained in revenue cases with the exception
of
occasional
legislative intervention and isolated judicial interpretations.”
It
is
on
this
point that
I
take issue with
Mr.
Stevens and would suggest that the very
opposite is true.
Nowadays, taxation pirates are usually hanged, no matter how ingenious
their schemes
or
how patently ambiguous the language of the Act.
Two quotations will suffice
as
indication of the present-day judicial
attitude.
“
For
years
a
battle of manoeuvre has been waged between the legislature
and those who are minded to throw the burden of taxation
off
their own
shoulders on to those of their fellow subjects. In that battle the legisla-
ture has often been worsted by the skill, determination, resourcefulness
of its opponents of whom the present appellant has not been the least
successful.
It
would not shock
us
in the least to find that the legislature
has determined to put an end to the struggle by imposing the severest
penalties.
It
scarcely lies in the mouth of the taxpayer who plays with
fire to complain
of
burnt fingers.”“
The
Modern
Law
Review.
And again
‘‘
My Lords, of recent years much ingenuity has bsen expended in certain
quarters in an attempt to devise methods
of
disposition of income by
which those who were prepared to adopt them might enjoy the benefits
of residence in this country while receiving the equivalent
of
such income
without sharing in the appropriate burden of British taxation. Judicial
dicta may be cited which point out that, however elaborate and artificial
such methods may be, those who adopt them are ‘entitled’ to do
so.
There is, of course, no doubt that they are within their legal rights, but
that is no reason why their efforts,
or
those of the professional gentle-
men who assist them in the matter, should be regarded as
a
commendable
exercise
of
ingenuity
or
as
a
discharge of the duties of good citizenship.
1
(1963)
26
M.L.R.
547.
2
[I9631 1
W.L.R.
727.
3
[1936]
A.C.
1.
4
Per
Lord Greene
M.R.,
Lord
Howard De
Walden
V.
I.R.C.
[1942]
1
K.B.
389
at
p.
397.
To continue reading
Request your trial