| Foreword |
|
v | |
| Editors' Preface |
|
ix | |
|
|
|
xix | |
|
|
|
xxi | |
|
|
|
xxxix | |
|
Table of UK Statutory Instruments |
|
|
xlii | |
|
|
|
|
1 Introduction: `Sham' Transactions |
|
|
|
A The Snook Case in Context |
|
|
6 | (17) |
|
B The Origins of Sham Reasoning |
|
|
23 | (11) |
|
C `Sham' Transactions and the Limits to Legal Effectiveness |
|
|
34 | (24) |
|
D Sham, Purposive Construction, and Tax Law |
|
|
58 | (29) |
|
E Sham Reasoning: Broad or Narrow? |
|
|
87 | |
|
2 Sham: Early Uses and Related and Unrelated Doctrines |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (5) |
|
|
|
6 | (12) |
|
C `Colour' and `Colourable' |
|
|
18 | (16) |
|
D Fraus Legis and Related Doctrines |
|
|
34 | (6) |
|
E Simulation and `Simulated' |
|
|
40 | (2) |
|
|
|
42 | (18) |
|
G Not Connected: Lease, Licence, and Labels |
|
|
60 | (7) |
|
|
|
67 | |
|
3 The Judicial Doctrine in Australia |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (3) |
|
B Sham and Principles of Legal Construction |
|
|
4 | (14) |
|
C Sham in the Context of Legislative Regimes |
|
|
18 | (11) |
|
|
|
29 | (18) |
|
E Elements of Sham in Australia |
|
|
47 | (7) |
|
F The Policy and Law of Sham |
|
|
54 | |
|
4 Sham Transactions in the United States |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (4) |
|
B Corporate Tax Abuse and Judicial Uncertainty in the US |
|
|
5 | (27) |
|
C A Study of Corporate Tax Abuse in the US Supreme Court |
|
|
32 | (27) |
|
D Shams in Other US Legal Contexts |
|
|
59 | (2) |
|
|
|
61 | |
|
5 Sham and Purposive Statutory Construction |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (6) |
|
B Norglen and Circuit Systems |
|
|
7 | (13) |
|
C The `Advance' and `Retreat' in the Tax Context |
|
|
20 | (11) |
|
|
|
31 | (9) |
|
|
|
40 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Applying Ordinary Principles of Private Law |
|
|
5 | (9) |
|
B Explaining the Anomalous Cases |
|
|
14 | (35) |
|
C The Implications of the Proposed Solution |
|
|
49 | (6) |
|
|
|
55 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 | (24) |
|
|
|
30 | |
|
8 Trusts: A Practitioner's Perspective |
|
|
|
A Application of the Doctrine |
|
|
3 | (1) |
|
B Identifying the Sham Transaction |
|
|
4 | (3) |
|
C Identifying the Real Transaction |
|
|
7 | (2) |
|
D Settlor's Intention to Create a Sham |
|
|
9 | (8) |
|
E Intention of Other Parties |
|
|
17 | (13) |
|
F Dispositions Intended by Settlor: Enforceability Generally |
|
|
30 | (3) |
|
G Assets Intended to be Held for Settlor: Position of Settlor |
|
|
33 | (5) |
|
H Assets Intended to be Held for Settlor: Position of Trustees |
|
|
38 | (2) |
|
I Assets Intended to be Held for Settlor: Position of Third Parties |
|
|
40 | (16) |
|
J Challenges to Sham Trusts |
|
|
56 | (4) |
|
|
|
60 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (4) |
|
B Legal Features of Fixed and Floating Charges that Influence Drafting Decisions |
|
|
5 | (8) |
|
C The Development of the Agnew Approach to the Construction of Charges |
|
|
13 | (15) |
|
D A Comparison: Extended Retention of Title Clauses |
|
|
28 | (19) |
|
E The Relevance of Sham Reasoning to the First Stage of the Agnew Analysis |
|
|
47 | (15) |
|
F The (Ir)relevance of Sham Reasoning to the Second Stage of the Agnew Analysis |
|
|
62 | (7) |
|
G The Practical Significance of Sham Doctrine in the Avoidance of Floating Security |
|
|
69 | (8) |
|
|
|
77 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (4) |
|
|
|
5 | (19) |
|
|
|
24 | (22) |
|
D The Future of the Contract in Employment Law |
|
|
46 | (11) |
|
|
|
57 | |
|
11 Piercing the Corporate Veil |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (3) |
|
B The History of Separate Personality and the Non-Recourse Rule |
|
|
4 | (5) |
|
C Respecting Separate Personality |
|
|
9 | (7) |
|
D When Will the Veil be Pierced at Common Law? |
|
|
16 | (36) |
|
E Is `Sham' Reasoning Useful Here? |
|
|
52 | (5) |
|
|
|
57 | |
|
III Taxation and Purposive Statutory Construction |
|
|
|
12 Tracing the Boundaries of Sham and Ramsay |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (7) |
|
B Sham Transactions and Tax Avoidance Schemes |
|
|
8 | (9) |
|
C Acquiring and Disposing of Securities for Tax Advantage |
|
|
17 | (13) |
|
D The Relevance of `Intention' |
|
|
30 | (7) |
|
E A Legal Analysis of Mr Berry's Arrangements |
|
|
37 | (8) |
|
|
|
45 | (9) |
|
|
|
54 | |
|
13 Sham, Tax Avoidance, and a GAAR: A New Zealand Perspective |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (3) |
|
|
|
4 | (8) |
|
C The Sham Doctrine in a Jurisdiction with a General Anti-Avoidance Provision |
|
|
12 | (31) |
|
|
|
43 | |
|
14 Sham in the Canadian Courts |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (3) |
|
B Sham as a Judicial Anti-Avoidance Doctrine in Canadian Tax Law |
|
|
4 | (27) |
|
C Recent Moves to Expand Sham |
|
|
31 | (14) |
|
|
|
45 | (7) |
|
|
|
52 | |
|
15 Sham, Tax Avoidance, and `A Realistic View of Facts' in the UK |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (6) |
|
B The Ramsay Approach and a `Realistic View of Facts' |
|
|
7 | (13) |
|
|
|
20 | (11) |
|
|
|
31 | |
|
16 Sham and Tax Law in Australia |
|
|
|
A Starbucks, Transfer Fees, and Funding the Modern State |
|
|
1 | (11) |
|
B The Decision in Raftland |
|
|
12 | (7) |
|
C Three Reasons for Reluctance towards `Sham' |
|
|
19 | (13) |
|
D The Current Doctrine of `Sham' |
|
|
32 | (15) |
|
|
|
47 | (7) |
|
|
|
54 | (235) |
| Index |
|
289 | |