I have often thought that issues relating to tax policy can usually be explained by analogy with the laws of the road.
I think that this scene below illustrates the point both generally and also by showing how hard it is to define "avoidance" with any precision.
I think that this scene below illustrates the point both generally and also by showing how hard it is to define "avoidance" with any precision.
https://twitter.com/JonIrwinLD/status/1295423950797897730
1. The behaviour shown by the two moving cars clearly looks to be a case of illegal/unlawful conduct.
2. Acceptable avoidance/mitigation might involve either:
(a) a change of mode of transport (eg cycling/walking); or
(b) a change of route.
2. Acceptable avoidance/mitigation might involve either:
(a) a change of mode of transport (eg cycling/walking); or
(b) a change of route.
3. Arguably less acceptable avoidance would be to use two cars - one for either side of the barrier.
4. But how socially acceptable would 2(b) be? It must surely depend.
No-one would complain if the alternative route were the main road (whose regular hold-ups led to many motorists taking this more picturesque route in the first place).
No-one would complain if the alternative route were the main road (whose regular hold-ups led to many motorists taking this more picturesque route in the first place).
5. But if the alternative route were simply another residential road, some individuals are likely to complain.
But until that 2nd road is blocked, one can't say that the drivers are acting unlawfully/illegally. Indeed, they're doing precisely what the law allows and encourages.
But until that 2nd road is blocked, one can't say that the drivers are acting unlawfully/illegally. Indeed, they're doing precisely what the law allows and encourages.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
