At the intersection of artificiality, forward piercing not allowed
Publication Type
Transcript
Publication Date
4-2025
Abstract
When the sham doctrine, Ramsay principle in tax law, and attempts to pierce the corporate veil all appear in a single case, it is a good bet that the dispute centres around artificiality. In Hurstwood Properties v Rossendale BC, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom had occasion to review an application to strike out claims for the recovery of business rates by local authorities. The registered owners of non-domestic properties had engaged in two business rates avoidance schemes and argued that as a result, the local authorities had no reasonable grounds for bringing the claims.
Keywords
Tax Law
Discipline
Tax Law
Research Areas
Corporate, Finance and Securities Law
Publication
King's Law Journal
Volume
36
Issue
1
First Page
1
Last Page
8
ISSN
0961-5768
Identifier
10.1080/09615768.2025.2493431
Publisher
Taylor and Francis Group
Citation
OOI, Vincent.
At the intersection of artificiality, forward piercing not allowed. (2025). King's Law Journal. 36, (1), 1-8.
Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/4768