Hail the GAAR! (But it’s no GRAPIST)

Today an unsuspecting world of neoliberals and sophists feels the might of Justice for Taxes in the form of the interim guidance for the general anti abuse rule (GAAR).

I personally have written the GAAR interim guidance which carries the opinionated weight that only a man on an omnibus can deliver. I, also personally, have delivered the people of the United Kingdom with what they have been begging me for: A State of Sufficient Courage to Enact Some Sort of Anti-Avoidance Rules.

This is the First Step to becoming a State of Courage.

Of course, this is no thanks to the sociopathic accountants and lawyers who I relentlessly moralised at on the interim GAAR panel. Or the Coalition who have steadfastly opposed this great achievement of mine at every turn.

What I am saying is that where credit is due, credit me. But where the GAAR falls short, blame neoliberalism.

Firstly, to those who say that I have been opposed to the GAAR, I say get real. I have been full of praise for it from the beginning. It will compliment my GRAPIST when it finally gets enacted, and is necessary to prevent neoliberals abusing my GRAPIST.

I have not said one word that will detract from the deterrent effect of the GAAR.

Secondly, the GAAR is rubbish and cannot deliver the hundreds of billions of pounds of revenue my GRAPIST would yield. And that’s because the GAAR isn’t intended to catch things that are within the spirit of the law as well as the letter.

The GAAR isn’t intended to prevent avoidance like claiming marginal rate relief on profits beneath the threshold for the main rate of corporation tax.

Thirdly, the letter and the spirit of the law is now meaningless as you can tell by the reams of paper devoted to what sort of things are intended to be caught by the GAAR.

But there is much more to do. For starters, I wasn’t able to get the sociopathic neoliberals to agree with me that we should specify that where parents set up and run a service company for their nanny, this is clearly unreasonable.

It is blatantly unreasonable because it would be seen as reasonable when viewed by an unreasonable man reading the law in an unreasonable manner. Therefore, a reasonable person would reasonably think it is an unreasonable thing to do other than for tax avoidance purposes.

But my logic was beyond the rest of the panel. And this was not an isolated incident.

Never mind, nanny tax avoiders will have to wait until my GRAPIST is enacted.

And Starbucks. And Amazon. And Google. And Glencore. And Arcadia. And Vodafone.

But not Stemcor.

And HSBC. And Barclay’s.

And David Beckham.

And Tony Blair.

And all MPs. But not Margaret Hodge or Michael Meacher.

And Apple. And Microsoft.

And the Irish. And the Luxembourgois. And the Caymanese. And the entire EU.

And all non-EU countries.

And bankers. And accountants. And lawyers. And tax advisers. And all neoliberal sophists everywhere.

And multinational corporations. And family owned businesses held through trusts. Except Stemcor. And charities. And trusts. And companies. And partnerships. And sole traders. And employees.

Yes, I welcome the GAAR and the progress it marks, but let’s not forget the real goal of getting a GRAPIST.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s