General anti-avoidance rule (GAAR)

Aaronson report

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶187-880

Advisory panel

Consideration by

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶187-945

Decisions of

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶187-950

Generally

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶187-930–Tax Reporter ¶187-935

Notice of HMRC's final decision

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶187-955

Procedure

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶187-940

Clarification and simplification – Barclays

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶187-865

Commencement and effect

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶187-965

Counteracting tax advantages

Adjustments

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶187-915

Consequential claims

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶187-920

Procedural aspects of counteraction

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶187-925

Definition

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶187-910

Generally

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶1007-500 ; Tax Reporter ¶1042-955 ; Tax Reporter ¶1134-000–Tax Reporter ¶1134-020 ; Tax Reporter ¶187-885 ; Tax Reporter ¶187-890 ; ¶200-030

Gift between spouse

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶187-975

Government's pledge

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶187-875

Implementation

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶187-895

Incorporating a business

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶187-970

Main residence election

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶187-977

HMRC Guidance – CG64510

No general rule against tax avoidance

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶187-850

Position following Barclays

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶187-870

Ramsay principle

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶187-860

Case Law – W.T. Ramsay Ltd v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue Eilbeck (H.M. Inspector of Taxes) v. Rawling

Real-life scenarios

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶187-967

Relationship between other rules

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶187-905

Scope

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶187-900

Timing transactions efficiently

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶187-972

Westminster doctrine

Commentary – Tax Reporter ¶187-855

Case Law – (1) Latilla v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (No. 2) (2) Latilla-Campbell v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (3) Mayo v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue ; AYRSHIRE PULLMAN MOTOR SERVICES AND D. M. RITCHIE v. THE COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE. ; DUKE OF WESTMINSTER v. COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE ; LEVENE v. THE COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE. ; LORD HOWARD DE WALDEN v. COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE ; THE COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE v. FISHER'S EXECUTORS.