Comparing the General Anti-avoidance Rule of Income Tax Law with the Civil Law Doctrine of Abuse of Law (Part II)

Authors

  • Zoë Prebble Victoria University of Wellington
    BA (Hons), LLB (Hons), Victoria University of Wellington; New Zealand Law Comission, New Zealand.
  • John Prebble Victoria University of Wellington

    BA, LLB (Hons), Auckland; BCL, Oxon; JSD, Cornell; Inner Tempre; Professor and former Dean of Law and Henry Lang
    Fellow, Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington; Member, Advisory Board, International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, Amsterdam; and Senior Fellow, Taxation Law and Policy Research Institute, Monash University, Melbourne.

Keywords:

Anti-avoidance Provisions, Income Tax, Abuse of Rights, European Union, Case Cadbury Schweppes, United States of America, United Kingdom, Business Purpose Doctrine

Abstract

This article compares and analyzes how member States of the European Union, the United States of America and the United Kingdom combat tax avoidance through its legal systems. The article addresses issues such as the influence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the case Cadbury Schweppes in establishing anti-avoidance rules in member States of the European Union and the application of Business Purpose Doctrine in the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2015-11-23

How to Cite

Prebble, Z., & Prebble, J. (2015). Comparing the General Anti-avoidance Rule of Income Tax Law with the Civil Law Doctrine of Abuse of Law (Part II). IUS ET VERITAS, 24(51), 16–31. Retrieved from https://revistas.pucp.edu.pe/index.php/iusetveritas/article/view/15649

Issue

No. 51 (2015)

Section

Artículos

License

Copyright (c) 2016 IUS ET VERITAS

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.