In which we subcontract out the necessity of Murphy being taught the difference between Common Law and the Napoleonic code with a damn girt cluebat to the Misanthrope Girl.
Dear God the man can be stupid.
He then tells us that there\’s a common lawe offence of cheating. Which therefore, yah boo sucks, makes him right and the Revenue can prosecute Jimmy Carr and the likes for cheating.
William Harkins said that \”all frauds affecting the Crown and public at large are indictable as cheats at common law.\” This passage was cited in R v Mulligan  Crim LR 427.
So let us take this at face value then. We have two options when considering tax avoidance.
1) The Revenue does not prosecute tax avoiders because it\’s not fraud and therefore it\’s not cheating. Collapse of Ritchie\’s entire case against tax avoidance.
2) Tax avoidance is fraud, is cheating, therefore there is a law against it if the Revenue wishes to use it. Therefore we do not need any more laws about tax avoidance, no not even a general anti avoidance principle, because the law already contains the necessary powers. Collapse of Ritchie\’s entire argument for a change in the law.
There are no other possible arguments. Either tax avoidance is cheating in which case we have a law against it or it is not cheating in which case we do not need a law against it, do we?