Abstract:
This article outlines the decisions of the Supreme Court in December 2008 in the Ben Nevis Forestry Ventures Ltd (more colloquially known as the Trinity case) and Ors v Commissioner of Inland Revenue and Glenharrow Holdings Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue tax avoidance cases. The article examines whether the decisions extend the reach of the general anti-avoidance provisions and predicts the future direction in anti-avoidance jurisprudence charted by the Court. Finally, the paper considers the first application of the Supreme Court's reasoning in the "surgeons, case" (Penny v Commissioner of Inland Revenue), decided on 19 March 2009. The writers conclude that whilst our highest court has completed the swing in favour of Inland Revenue, as shown in recent tax avoidance cases involving artificial and uncommercial arrangements, it has also brought some additional focus to how the general anti-avoidance rules work in tandem with the other "black letter" or specific provisions in the Act.