That’s not bad, but I prefer to compare tax avoidance, which is hard to define, with tax compliance which I find easier to define. Tax compliance is seeking to pay the right amount of tax (but no more) in the right place at the right time where right means that the economic substance of the transactions undertaken coincides with the place and form in which they are reported for taxation purposes.
In that case tax avoidance happens whenever someone chooses a course of action which results in the wrong amount of tax being paid, in the wrong place and at the wrong time.
Boots is a Swiss company paying cortporation tax in Switzerland. Where interest is a tax deductible cost of the business. Given that this is what Boots did, deducted interest before calculating profits upon which tax was due, Boots did not indulge in any tax avoidance.
All of which rather amuses. By Murphy\’s very definition of tax avoidance none of the four majoe UK Uncut cases actually avoided tax.
I wonder when the Great Guru is going to let the teenage trots know this?