Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJames, Malcolm
dc.date.accessioned2017-02-09T21:40:46Z
dc.date.available2017-02-09T21:40:46Z
dc.date.issued2016-11
dc.identifier.citationJames, M. (2013) "Cutting a good deal – UK Uncut, Goldman Sachs and the challenge to administrative discretion", Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 14 (3), pp.248 - 267en_US
dc.identifier.issn0967-5426
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10369/8335
dc.descriptionThis article was published in Journal of Applied Accounting Research in November 2013 (online), available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-11-2012-0082en_US
dc.description.abstractPurpose – The purpose of this paper is to assess the issues raised by and the possible long-term significance of the judicial review obtained by the pressure group UK Uncut into HM Revenue and Customs’ decision to forgive £10 m of interest payable by the investment bank, Goldman Sachs. Design/methodology/approach – Using Lukes’ (2005) three dimensions of power as a conceptual framework, the paper compares this case with a similar case from the 1980s in order to discuss the importance of democratic oversight of the way in which public bodies discharge their duties, the extent to which this should override the principle of taxpayer confidentiality and the extent to which legal rules and procedures permit such oversight. Findings – The comparison shows that, by permitting the review to proceed, greater weight was given to the importance of democratic oversight in the UK Uncut's case, but the rejection of both cases demonstrates that the tax authority is permitted very wide administrative discretion. However, whilst UK Uncut's challenge ultimately failed, it exposed aspects of the tax authority's relationship with large taxpayers to public gaze. This has contributed to demands for changes in the taxation system, which legislators might eventually feel forced to heed. Originality/value – This paper reminds that any significant shift in public attitudes must always have a beginning, and that, even if the challenge fails, it might be the first tangible evidence of a demand for greater transparency in the administration of the tax system which might lead to future changes.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherEmeralden_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesJournal of Applied Accounting Research;
dc.subjecttax lawsen_US
dc.subjectGoldman Sachsen_US
dc.subjectHMRCen_US
dc.subjectUK Uncuten_US
dc.subjectSweetheart dealen_US
dc.titleCutting a good deal - UK Uncut, Goldman Sachs and the challenge to administrative discretionen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-11-2012-0082
dcterms.dateAccepted2015-11-15
rioxxterms.versionAMen_US
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserveden_US
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2017-02-10


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record