反避税问题是各国税务当局面临的难题,各国的作法亦不一致。在大陆法系国家,德国税法上有所谓“法律形成可能性之滥用”的专门规定,日本在其法人税法中规定有实质课税原则。在英美法系国家,加拿大、澳大利亚、新西兰、新加坡、北爱尔兰等国制定了反避税一般规则,美国发展了一系列反避税的判例法规则,诸如实质高于形式规则、一步交易规则、虚伪表示规则。相对来讲,英国在反避税方面比较保守。英国税法上没有制定反避税的一般规则(有一些针对个别情况的规定),英国法院对于英国税务局认定纳税人避税的主张历来持审慎态度。本世纪八十年代初,英国法院的态度曾有所改变。去年英国工党上台执政后,由于工党政府“消灭”避税的强硬态度,英伦三岛就英国是否应当制定反避税一般规则展开了热烈讨论,迄今没有结果。鉴于国内对此缺少研讨,本文拟对英国判例法上反避税政策的演变略作介绍。 The issue of anti-tax avoidance is a difficult issue facing the tax authorities in various countries. The practice of all countries is also inconsistent. In civil law countries, the German tax code has so-called “abuse of the possibility of legal formation”. Japan has stipulated the principle of substantive taxation in its corporate tax code. In Anglo-American countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Northern Ireland, the United States has formulated general anti-avoidance rules. The United States has developed a series of case-control rules that oppose tax avoidance, such as substance over form rules, one-step trading rules, hypocrisy rule. Relatively speaking, Britain is more conservative in anti-tax avoidance. There are no general rules on anti-avoidance in the UK tax code (there are a few case-specific rules) and the British courts have always been cautious about the claim that the IRS finds taxpayers tax avoidance. In the early 1980s, the attitude of British courts changed. After the British Labor Party came to power last year, due to the hard-line attitude of the Labor government “eliminating” tax avoidance, the British Isles has held heated discussions on whether the United Kingdom should formulate general rules on anti-avoidance and has so far failed. In view of the lack of domestic discussion on this issue, this article intends to make a brief introduction to the evolution of the anti-tax avoidance policy in the English case law.