A comparison of the effectiveness of the judicial doctrine of "substance over form" with legislated measures in combatting tax avoidance

Taxation statutes often provide opportunities for tax avoidance by taxpayers who exploit the provisions of the taxing statute to reduce the tax that they are legally required to pay. It is, however, important to distinguish between the concepts of tax avoidance and tax evasion. The central issue, especially where the contract has no business purpose, is whether it is possible for the substance and legal form of the transaction to differ to such an extent that a court of law will favour the substance rather than the legal format. The debate is whether the courts should be encouraged to continue with their "judge-made" law or whether the tax jurisdictions should be supporting a legislative route as opposed to a judicial one, in their efforts not only to combat tax avoidance but also to preserve taxpayer certainty. The question is whether the Doctrine of "Substance over Form" as applied by the judiciary is effective in combating tax avoidance, or whether a legislated general anti-avoidance provision is required. An intensive literature survey examines the changes which have occurred in the application of judicial tests from the 1930's to date and investigates the different approaches tax jurisdictions follow in order to combat tax avoidance. The effect of the introduction of anti-avoidance provisions in combating tax avoidance is evaluated by making a comparison between the United Kingdom and South Africa. [n the United Kingdom, the courts are relied on to create anti-tax avoidance rules, one of which is the Doctrine of "Substance over Form". The doctrine is very broad and identifies various applications of the doctrine, which have been developed by the courts. In South Africa, the Doctrine of "Substance over Form" has been applied in certain tax cases; however the South African Income Tax Act does include anti-tax avoidance sections aimed at specific tax avoidance schemes, as well as a general anti-tax avoidance measure enacted as section 103. The judicial tests have progressed and changed over time and the introduction of anti-avoidance legislation in the Income Tax Act has had an effect on tax planning opportunities. A distinction needs to be made between fraudulent and bona fide transactions while recognising the taxpayer's right to arrange his or her affairs in a manner which is beneficial to him or her from a tax perspective. Judicial activism and judicial legislation in the United Kingdom has created much uncertainty amongst taxpayers and as a result strongly supports the retention of a general anti-avoidance section within an Income Tax Act. A general anti-avoidance provision, following a legislative route, appears to be more consistent and effective in combating tax avoidance