Allen, R. C. (1992), Enclosure and the Yeoman: The Agricultural Development of the South Midlands, 1450–1850 (Oxford: Oxford University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

American Bar Association Section of Taxation (2007), ‘Economic Substance Codification: ABA has “Substantial Reservations”’, Tax Notes 115: 389–96

Apps, P. and Rees, R. (2007), The Taxation of Couples, IZA Discussion Paper No. 2910 (Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor) at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1000899Google Scholar

Aprill, E. P. (2001), ‘Tax Shelters, Tax Law, and Morality: Codifying Judicial Doctrines’, SMU Law Review 54: 9–35Google Scholar

Arnold, B. J. (2004), ‘Tax Treaties and Tax Avoidance: The 2003 Revisions to the Commentary to the OECD Model Convention’, Bulletin for International Fiscal Documentation 58(6): 488–511Google Scholar

Arnold, B. J. (2006a), ‘Confusion Worse Confounded: The Supreme Court's GAAR Decisions’, Canadian Tax Journal 54: 167–209Google Scholar

Arnold, B. J. (2006b), ‘The Supreme Court and the Interpretation of Tax Statutes – Again’, Canadian Tax Journal 54: 677–84Google Scholar

Arnold, B. J. and Wilson, J. R. (1988), ‘The General Anti-Avoidance Rule – Part II’, Canadian Tax Journal 36: 1123–85Google Scholar

Atiyah,, P. S. and Summers,, R. S. (1987), Form and Substance in Anglo-American Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press)Google Scholar

Auerbach, A (2006), ‘The Future of Capital Income Taxation’, Fiscal Studies 27: 399–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jones, Avery J. F. (1983), ‘The Leedale Affair’, British Tax Review 1983: 70–2Google Scholar

Jones, Avery J. F. (2007), ‘The History of the United Kingdom's First Comprehensive Double Tax Agreement’, British Tax Review 2007: 211–54Google Scholar

Jones, Avery J. F.et al. (2006), ‘The Origins of Concepts and Expressions Used in the OECD Model and their Adoption by States’, Bulletin for International Taxation 60: 220–54Google Scholar

Bagchi, A. K. (1990), ‘Land Tax, Property Rights and Peasant Insecurity in Colonial India’, Journal of Peasant Studies 20: 1–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, J. H. (2002), An Introduction to English Legal History, 4th edition (London: Butterworths)Google Scholar

Baker, P. (2000), ‘Taxation and the European Convention on Human Rights’, British Tax Review 2000: 211–377Google Scholar

Ballance, J. (1887), A National Land Policy Based on the Principle of State Ownership (Wellington: Lyon and Blair)Google Scholar

Baltus, F. (2006), ‘Les “Pratiques Abusives” en Matière de TVA’, Journal de Droit Fiscal 80: 338–60Google Scholar

Bank, S. A. (2001), ‘Codifying Judicial Doctrines: No Cure for Rules but More Rules?’, SMU Law Review 54: 37–45Google Scholar

Banks, J. and Blundell, R. (2005), ‘Private Pension Arrangements and Retirement in Britain’, Fiscal Studies 26: 35–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bankman, J. (2004), ‘The Tax Shelter Problem’, National Tax Journal 57: 925–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bassett, J. (2004), ‘Atkinson, Sir Harry Albert (1831–1892)’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press), online edition: www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/844Google Scholar

Beale, L. M. (2006), ‘Tax Advice Before the Return: The Case for Raising Standards and Denying Evidentiary Privileges’, Virginia Tax Review 25: 583–669Google Scholar

Beatson,, J. (2006), ‘Unlawful Statutes and Mistakes of Law: Is there a Smile on the Face of Schrödinger's Cat?’, in Burrows, A. and Rodger, A. (eds.), Mapping the Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 163–80Google Scholar

Beattie, C. N. and Tiley, J. (1970), Beattie's Elements of Estate Duty, 7th edition (London: Butterworths)Google Scholar

Beckett, J. V. (1985), ‘Land Tax or Excise: The Levying of Taxation in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century England’, English Historical Review 100: 285–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beckett, J. V. and Turner, M. E. (1990), ‘Taxation and Economic Growth in Eighteenth-Century England’, Economic History Review 43: 377–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Belich, J. (2006), ‘Grey, Sir George (1812–1898)’,in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press), online edition: www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/11534Google Scholar

Birks, P. (2005), Unjust Enrichment, 2nd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bittker, B., McMahon, M. and Zelenak, L. (2002), Federal Income Taxation of Individuals (New York: Warren, Gorham & Lamont)Google Scholar

Bowler, T. (2007), Taxation of the Family, Tax Law Review Committee Discussion Paper No. 6 (London: Institute for Fiscal Studies)Google Scholar

Brenner, R. (1976), ‘Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-industrial Europe’, Past and Present70: 30–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bridgland, N. (2006), ‘The EU Code of Conduct to Eliminate Harmful or Potentially Harmful Business Tax Regimes: The Future’, Tax Planning International European Union Focus 8(1): 8–11Google Scholar

Brooking, T. (2004), ‘McKenzie, Sir John (1839–1901)’, inOxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press), online edition: www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/34752Google Scholar

Brooks, N. (1985), ‘Future Directions in Canadian Tax Law Scholarship’, Osgoode Hall Law Journal 23: 441–75Google Scholar

Bulkeley, W. M. (2007), ‘IBM's Under-the-wire Tax Break’, Wall Street Journal, 7June 2007, p. A3Google Scholar

Buxton, J. (1888), Finance and Politics: An Historical Study. 1783–1885, 2 vols. (London: John Murray)Google Scholar

Canada, (1988), Explanatory Notes to Legislation Relating to Income Tax, June (Ottawa: Department of Finance)Google Scholar

Canellos, P. C. (2001), ‘A Tax Practitioner's Perspective on Substance, Form and Business Purpose in Structuring Business Transactions and in Tax Shelters’, SMU Law Review 54: 47–72Google Scholar

Charlesworth, N. (1984), ‘The Problem of Government Finance in British India: Taxation, Borrowing and the Allocation of Resources in the Inter-war Period’, Modern Asian Studies 19: 521–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chirelstein, M. A. and Zelenak, L. A. (2005), ‘Tax Shelters and the Search for a Silver Bullet’, Columbia Law Review 105: 1939–62Google Scholar

Chowdry, M. (2004), ‘Unjust Enrichment and Section 80(3) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994’, British Tax Review 2004: 620–37Google Scholar

Chowdry, M. (2005), ‘The Revenue's Response: A Time Bar on Claims’, Law Quarterly Review 121: 546–50Google Scholar

Chrétien, M. (1954), ‘Le rôles des organisations internationals dans le règlement des questions d'impôts entre les divers états’ Recueil des Cours 86-II: 1–116Google Scholar

Cobbett, W. (1812–1820), The Parliamentary History of England, From the Earliest Period to the Year 1803, Vols. 13–36 (London: Longman & Co.)Google Scholar

Cooper, G. S. (2001), ‘International Experience with General Anti-avoidance Rules’, SMU Law Review 54: 83–130Google Scholar

Cooper, G. S. (2006), ‘The Emerging High Court Jurisprudence on Part IVA’, University of Sydney Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series, No. 06/09 at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract_id=919480Google Scholar

Cornford, F. M. (1908), Microcosmographia Academica (Cambridge: Bowes & Bowes), available at www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/iau/cornford/cornford.htmlGoogle Scholar

Daunton, M. (1983), House and Home in the Victorian City: Working-Class Housing, 1850–1914 (London: Edward Arnold)Google Scholar

Daunton, M. (1995), Progress and Poverty: An Economic and Social History of Britain, 1700–1850 (Oxford, Oxford University Press)Google Scholar

Daunton, M. (2001), Trusting Leviathan: The Politics of Taxation in Britain, 1799–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)Google Scholar

Dawson, W. H. (1890), The Unearned Increment: Or, Reaping without Sowing (London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co.)Google Scholar

Degadt, C. and Hoorebeke, A. (2006), ‘New Belgian Anti-Abuse Measures: Belgian Legislator adopts Halifax Doctrine’, Tax Planning International European Union Focus 8(10): 14–15Google Scholar

Dodge, D. (1988),‘A New and More Coherent Approach to Tax Avoidance’, Canadian Tax Journal 36(1): 1–22Google Scholar

Douma, S. and Engelen, F. (2006), ‘Case Note: Halifax plc and Others v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise: The ECJ Applies the Abuse of Rights Doctrine in VAT Cases’, British Tax Review 2006: 429–40Google Scholar

Dowell, S. (1884), A History of Taxation and Taxes in England from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, 4 vols (London, Longmans & Co)Google Scholar

Dunbar, D. (2006), ‘Judicial Techniques for Controlling the New Zealand General Anti-Avoidance Rule: The Scheme and Purpose Approach, from Challenge Corporation to Peterson’, New Zealand Journal of Taxation Law and Policy 12: 324–96Google Scholar

Dyck, I. (1992), William Cobbett and Rural Popular Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)Google Scholar

Edelman, J. (2005), ‘Limitation Periods and the Theory of Unjust Enrichment’, Modern Law Review 68: 848–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar

European Commission (1997), ‘Towards Tax-Coordination in the European Union – A Package to Tackle Harmful Tax Competition’, 1 October 1997, COM (97)495 final

Feria, R. (2006a), ‘The European Court of Justice's Solution to Aggressive VAT Planning – Further Towards Legal Uncertainty?’, EC Tax Review 15: 27–35Google Scholar

Feria, R. (2006b), ‘Giving Themselves Extra VAT? The ECJ Ruling in Halifax’, British Tax Review 2006: 119–23Google Scholar

Fforde, M. (1990), Conservatism and Collectivism, 1886–1914 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press)Google Scholar

Financial Reform Association (1859), Report on Taxation. Direct and Indirect. Adopted by the Financial Reform Association, Liverpool, and Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science Held at Bradford, Oct. 1859 (Liverpool)

Freedman, J. (2004a), ‘Defining Taxpayer Responsibility: In Support of a General Anti-Avoidance Principle’, British Tax Review 2004: 332–57Google Scholar

Freedman,, J. (2004b), ‘Taxation Research as Legal Research’, in Lamb, M., Lymer, A., Freedman, J. and James, S. (eds.), Taxation: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Research (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 13–34Google Scholar

Freedman, J. (2005), ‘Converging Tracks? Recent Developments in Canadian and UK Approaches to Tax Avoidance’, Canadian Tax Journal 53(4): 1038–46Google Scholar

Galle, B. (2006), ‘Interpretative Theory and Tax Shelter Regulation’, Virginia Tax Review 26: 357–403Google Scholar

Gammie,, M. (1997), ‘A Perspective from the United Kingdom’, in Cooper, G. S. (ed.), Tax Avoidance and the Rule of Law (Amsterdam: IBFD Publications), pp. 181–218Google Scholar

Gammie, M. (2005), ‘Barclays and Canada Trustco: Further Comment from a UK Perspective’, Canadian Tax Journal 53(4): 1047–52Google Scholar

Gammie, M. (2006), ‘Sham and Reality: The Taxation of Composite Transactions’, British Tax Review 2006: 294–317Google Scholar

Gergen, M. P. (2002), ‘The Logic of Deterrence: Corporate Tax Shelters’, Tax Law Review 55: 255–86Google Scholar

Ginsburg, M. (1985), ‘The National Office Mission’, Tax Notes 27: 99–102Google Scholar

Ginter, D. E. (1992), A Measure of Wealth: The English Land Tax in Historical Analysis (London: Hambledon Press)Google Scholar

Glenn, H. (2007), ‘IRS Official, Practitioners Pan Economic Substance Doctrine Codification’, Tax Notes 115: 888Google Scholar

Goldsmith, P. (2007), We Won; You Lost. Eat That! A Political History of Tax in New Zealand Since 1840, unpublished manuscript

Goschen, G. J. (1872), Reports and Speeches on Local Taxation (London: Macmillan and Co.)Google Scholar

Granwell, A. and McGonigle, S. (2006), ‘US Tax Shelters: A UK Reprise?’, British Tax Review 2006: 170–208Google Scholar

Graetz, M. J. and O'Hear, M. M. (1997), ‘The “Original Intent” of US International Taxation’, Duke Law Journal 46: 1021–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Greg, W. R. (1860), ‘British Taxation’, Edinburgh Review 111: 254Google Scholar

George, H. (1880), Progress and Poverty: An Inquiry into the Cause of Industrial Depressions and of Increase of Want with Increase of Wealth. The Remedy (New York: D. Appleton & Co.)Google Scholar

Gunn, A. (2001), ‘The Use and Misuse of Antiabuse Rules: Lessons from the Partnership Antiabuse Regulations’, SMU Law Review 54: 159–76Google Scholar

Gustafson,, C. H. (1997), ‘The Politics and Practicalities of Checking Tax Avoidance in the United States’, in Cooper, G. S. (ed.), Tax Avoidance and the Rule of Law (Amsterdam: IBFD Publications), pp. 349–76Google Scholar

Halperin, D. (1995), ‘Are Anti-abuse Rules Appropriate?’, Tax Lawyer 48: 807–16Google Scholar

Hamer, D. (1988), The New Zealand Liberals: The Years of Power (Auckland: Auckland University Press)Google Scholar

Harris, P. (1996), Corporate/Shareholder Income Taxation and Allocating Taxing Rights Between Countries: A Comparison of Imputation Systems (Amsterdam: IBFD)Google Scholar

Harris, P. (1999), ‘An Historic View of the Principle and Options for Double Tax Relief’, British Tax Review, 1999: 469–89Google Scholar

Harris, P. (2000), ‘Origins of the 1963 OECD Model Series: Working Party 12 and Article 10’, Australian Tax Forum 15: 3–223Google Scholar

Harris, P. (2006), Income Tax in Common Law Jurisdictions: From the Origins to 1820 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harris, P. (2007a), ‘Fair in Love but not Taxation: The English Origin of the Australasian General Anti-Avoidance Rule – Part I’, Bulletin for International Taxation 61(2): 65–83Google Scholar

Harris, P. (2007b), ‘Fair in Love but not Taxation: The English Origin of the Australasian General Anti-Avoidance Rule – Part II’, Bulletin for International Taxation 61(3): 109–25Google Scholar

Harvard Law Review Association (2004) ‘Developments in the Law – Corporations and Society: V. Governmental Attempts to Stem the Rising Tide of Corporate Tax Shelters’, Harvard Law Review 117: 2249–71

Herman, T. (1999), ‘Tax Report’, Wall Street Journal, 10 February 1999, p. A1Google Scholar

HM Revenue & Customs, National Statistics at www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/

Hoffmann, L. (2005), ‘Tax Avoidance’, British Tax Review 2005: 197–206Google Scholar

International Fiscal Association (2002), Form and Substance in Tax Law, Cahiers de Droit Fiscal International, Vol. 87a (The Hague: Kluwer)

Kay, J. (1979), ‘The Economics of Tax Avoidance’, British Tax Review, 1979: 354–65Google Scholar

Kerridge, R. (2001), ‘Revenue Law by John Tiley’, British Tax Review, 2001: 283–7Google Scholar

Korb, D. (2007), ‘What a Difference Two Years Make! Remarks at the 2007 University of Southern California Tax Institute’, Tax Notes Today, 2007 TNT: 16–65Google Scholar

Lang, M. (2006), ‘Rechtsmissbrauch und Gemeinschaftsrecht’, Steuer und Wirtschaft International 16: 273–85Google Scholar

Lang, M. (2007), ‘Non-Discrimination: What Does History Teach Us?’, in Fiscalité et enterprise: politiques et pratiques: Mélanges en l'honneur de Jean Pierre Le Gall (Paris: Dalloz), pp. 103–8.Google Scholar

Lavoie, R. (2001), ‘Deputizing the Gunslingers: Co-Opting the Tax Bar into Dissuading Corporate Tax Shelters’, Virginia Tax Review 21: 43–99.Google Scholar

Leclercq, L. (2007), ‘Interacting Principles: The French Abuse of Law Concept and the EU Notion of Abusive Practices’, Bulletin for International Taxation 61(16): 235–44Google Scholar

Levy, H. (1911), Large and Small Holdings: A Study in English Agricultural Economics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)Google Scholar

Livingston, M. (1998), ‘Reinventing Tax Scholarship: Lawyers, Economists, and the Role of the Legal Academy’, Cornell Law Review 83: 365–436Google Scholar

Locher, P. (2007), ‘Rechtsmissbrauchsüberlegungen im Recht der direkten Steuern in der Schweiz’, Archiv für Schweizerisches Abgabenrecht 75: 675–700Google Scholar

McAlpin, M. B. (1983), Subject to Famine: Food Crises and Economic Change in Western India, 1860–1920 (Princeton: Princeton University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, H. L. (2007), ‘Abuse of Rights: The Effect of the Doctrine on VAT Planning’, British Tax Review 2007: 160–74Google Scholar

McCrudden, C. (2006), ‘Legal Research and the Social Sciences’, Law Quarterly Review 122: 632–50Google Scholar

McDaniel, P., McMahon, M.Simmons, D. and Abreu, A. (2004), Federal Income Taxation, Cases and Materials, 5th edition (New York: Foundation Press)Google Scholar

McInnes, M. (2003), ‘Interceptive Subtraction, Unjust Enrichment and Wrongs – A Reply to Professor Birks’, Cambridge Law Journal 62: 697–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McIvor, T. (1989), The Rainmaker: A Biography of John Ballance (Auckland: Heinemann Reed)Google Scholar

McIvor, T. (2004), ‘Ballance, John (1839–1893)’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press), online edition: www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1225Google Scholar

McMichael, P. (1984), Settlers and the Agrarian Question: Capitalism in Colonial Australia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Makkus, E. and Preter, J. (2006), ‘Abuse of Rights: The End of VAT Planning?’, Tax Planning International European Union Focus 8(3): 15–17Google Scholar

Mandler, P. (2001), ‘Art, Death and Taxes: The Taxation of Works of Art in Britain, 1796–1914’, Historical Research 74: 271–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mann, M. (1995), ‘A Permanent Settlement for the Ceded and Conquered Provinces: Revenue Administration in North India, 1801–33’, India Economic and Social History Review 32: 245–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Murray, A. and Carter, R. N. (1895), A Guide to Income-Tax Practice (London: Gee & Co.)Google Scholar

Meade, J. S. (1978), The Structure and Reform of Direct Taxation: report of a committee chaired by J. E. Meade (London: George Allen & Unwin)Google Scholar

Mehrotra, A. J. (2005), ‘Teaching Tax Stories’, Journal of Legal Education 55: 116–25Google Scholar

Morse, S. C. (2006), ‘The How and Why of the New Public Corporation Tax Shelter Compliance Norm’, Fordham Law Review 75: 961–1018Google Scholar

Moss, M. and Gillham, G. (2006), ‘Controlled Foreign Companies Legislation and the Abuse of Law’, Tax Planning International Review 33(12): 3–7Google Scholar

NevilleBrown, L. Brown, L. (1994), ‘Is there a General Principle of Abuse of Rights in European Community Law?’, in Curtin, D. and Heukels, T. (eds.), Institutional Dynamics of European Integration, Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, vol. II (Dordrecht/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff), pp. 511–26Google Scholar

New Zealand (1858–), Statistics of New Zealand for 1853, 1854, 1855, and 1856 (1857, etc.) … Compiled from official records (Auckland)

New Zealand (1893), ‘Statistical Summary of the Colony of New Zealand for the Years 1840–1852 (inclusive)’, in The New Zealand Official Year Book (Wellington: Government Printer)

Nutt, A. (2007), ‘O'Connor Cites Justice Gains in Combating Tax Shelters’, Tax Notes 115: 697Google Scholar

O'Brien, P. K. (1988), ‘The Political Economy of British Taxation, 1660–1815’, Economic History Review 41: 1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar

O'Brien, P. K. and Hunt, P. A. (1993), ‘The Rise of the Fiscal State in England, 1485–1815’, Historical Research 66: 129–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar

OECD (1963), Draft Model Double Taxation Convention on Income and Capital (Paris: OECD)

OECD (1985), Trends in International Taxation (Paris: OECD)

OECD (1992–), Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital, Committee on Fiscal Affairs (Paris: OECD)

OECD (1998), Harmful Tax Competition – An Emerging Global Issue (Paris: OECD)

OECD (1999), The Application of the OECD Model Tax Convention to Partnerships (Paris: OECD)

OECD (2000), Issues related to Article 14 of the OECD Model Tax Convention (Paris: OECD)

OEEC (1958), The Elimination of Double Taxation: Report of the Fiscal Committee of the OEEC (Paris: OEEC)

OEEC (1959), The Elimination of Double Taxation: 2nd Report by the Fiscal Committee of the OEEC (Paris: OEEC)

OEEC (1961), The Elimination of Double Taxation: Fourth Report of the Fiscal Committee of the OEEC (Paris: OEEC)

Offer, A. (1981), Property and Politics, 1870–1914: Landownership, Law, Ideology and Urban Development in England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)Google Scholar

Offer, A. (1989), The First World War: An Agrarian Interpretation (Oxford: Clarendon)Google Scholar

Oliver, J. D. B. (1998), ‘Ship-money’, British Tax Review 1998: 1–3Google Scholar

Park,, A. (1997), ‘Tax Law in and after the Wheatcroft Era’, in Rawlings, R. (ed.), Law, Society, and Economy (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 131–45Google Scholar

Pearlman, R. A. (2002), ‘Demystifying Disclosure: First Steps’, Tax Law Review 55: 289–324Google Scholar

Pedroli, A. (2007), ‘L'elusione fiscale nel diritto italiano’, Archiv für Schweizerisches Abgabenrecht 75: 701–26Google Scholar

Posner, R. A. (1987), ‘The Decline of Law as an Autonomous Discipline 1962–1987’, Harvard Law Review 100(4): 761–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Raad, K. (1987), 1963 and 1977 OECD Model Income Tax Treaties and Commentaries (Deventer: Kluwer)Google Scholar

Raskolnikov, A. (2006), ‘Crime and Punishment in Taxation: Deceit, Deterrence, and the Self-Adjusting Penalty’, Columbia Law Review 106: 569–642Google Scholar

Reeder, D. A. (1961), ‘The Politics of Urban Leaseholds in Late Victorian England’, International Review of Social History 6: 413–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ricardo,, D. (1951), On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, in Sraffa, P. and Dobb, M. H. (eds.), The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), vol. 1Google Scholar

Richardson, J. W. (1967), ‘Correspondence’, British Tax Review 1967: 153Google Scholar

Ridsdale, M. (2006), ‘Halifax and others v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Case C-255/02)’, Tax Planning International Review 33(3): 10–11Google Scholar

Rostain, T. (2006),'Sheltering Lawyers: The Organized Bar and the Tax Shelter Industry', Yale Journal on Regulation 23: 77–120Google Scholar

Rousselle, O. and Liebman, H. M. (2006), ‘The Doctrine of Abuse of Community Law: The Sword of Damocles Hanging over the Head of EC Corporate Tax Law?’, European Taxation 46: 559–64Google Scholar

Rush, M. (2006), The Defence of Passing On (Oxford: Hart Publishing)Google Scholar

Rutherford, J. (1961), Sir George Grey, 1812–1898: A Study in Colonial Government (London: Cassell)Google Scholar

Schizer, D. M. (2006), ‘Enlisting the Tax Bar’, Tax Law Review 59: 331–72Google Scholar

Schler, M. L. (2002), ‘Ten More Truths About Tax Shelters: The Problem, Possible Solutions, and a Reply to Professor Weisbach’, Tax Law Review 55: 325–95Google Scholar

Schön, W. (1996), ‘Gestaltungsmissbrauch im Europäischen Steuerrecht’, Internationales Steuerrecht 5(2): AppendixGoogle Scholar

Schön, W. (2000), ‘Tax Competition in Europe – the Legal Perspective’, EC Tax Review 9: 90–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schön,, W. (2002), ‘Der “Rechtsmissbrauch” im Europäischen Gesellschaftsrecht’, in Wank, R.et al. (ed.), Festschrift für Herbert Wiedemann zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich: C. H. Beck) p. 1271 et seq.Google Scholar

Schön, W. (2006a), ‘The Mobility of Companies and the Organizational Freedom of Company Founders’, European Company and Financial Law Review 3: 122–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schön,, W. (2006b), ‘State Aid in the Area of Taxation’, in Hancher, L.Ottervanger, T. and Slot, P. J. (eds.), EC State Aids, 3rd edition (London: Thomson/Sweet & Maxwell, London), pp. 241–76.Google Scholar

Sheppard, L. (2007), ‘Bad LILO Facts Make Good Law?’, Tax Notes 114: 733–41Google Scholar

Silsby, W. and Smith, I. (2007), ‘BATR (Badger and Toad Relief)’, Taxation 160(4115): 39–42Google Scholar

Silverman, M., Lerner, M. and Kidder, G. (2006), ‘The Economic Substance Doctrine: Sorting Through the Federal Circuit's “We Know It When We See It” Ruling in Coltec’, The Tax Executive 58: 423–41Google Scholar

Simmonds, S. (2007), ‘Government Continues Winning Streak in Shelter Litigation’, Tax Notes 115: 913Google Scholar

Simpson, P. (2006), ‘Case Note: Cadbury Schweppes plc v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue: the ECJ Sets Strict Test for CFC Legislation’, British Tax Review 2006: 677–83Google Scholar

Sinclair, K. (1957), Origins of the Maori Wars (Wellington: New Zealand University Press)Google Scholar

Stratton, S. (2007), ‘Black & Decker to Settle; Bigger Case on Horizon’, Tax Notes 114: 980Google Scholar

Stevens, R. (2005), ‘Justified Enrichment’, Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 5: 141–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stokes, E. (1959), The English Utilitarians and India (Oxford: Clarendon Press)Google Scholar

Stopforth, D. (1987), ‘The Background to the Anti-Avoidance Provisions Concerning Settlements by Parents on their Minor Children’, British Tax Review 1987: 417–33Google Scholar

Stopforth, D. (1992), ‘1922–36: Halcyon Days for the Tax Avoider’, British Tax Review 1992: 88–105Google Scholar

Surrey, S. S. (1969), ‘Complexity and the Internal Revenue Code: The Problem of the Management of Tax Detail’, Law & Contemporary Problems 34: 673–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tailby, C. (2006), ‘Halifax – A Basis for Optimism?’, The Tax Journal833(17 April): 4–6.Google Scholar

Tax Analysts (2007), ‘Senate Finance Tax Counsel Says Codification of Economic Substance Likely’, Tax Notes Today 2007 TNT: 97–3

Tax Analysts (electronic), Worldwide Tax Treaties (Falls Church: Tax Analysts), available at www.taxanalysts.com

Tempel, A. J. (1967), Relief from Double Taxation (Amsterdam: IBFD)Google Scholar

Tennant, C. (1856), The People's Blue Book: Taxation As It Is and As It Ought to Be, 2nd edition (1857), 3rd edition (1862), 4th edition (1872) (London: Longmans, Green & Co)Google Scholar

Thomas, P. J. (1939), The Growth of Federal Finance in India (Madras: Oxford University Press)Google Scholar

Thompson,, F. M. L. (2002), ‘Changing Perceptions of Land Tenures in Britain, 1750–1914’, in Winch, D. and O'Brien, P. K. (eds.), The Political Economy of British Historical Experience, 1688–1914 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 119–38Google Scholar

Tiley, J. (1980), ‘Widowhood Anomalies’, British Tax Review 1980: 216–18Google Scholar

Tiley,, J. (1985a), ‘An Academic Perspective on the Ramsay/Dawson Doctrine’, in Dyson, J. (ed.), Recent Tax Problems (London: Stevens & Sons), pp. 19–27Google Scholar

Tiley, J (1985b), ‘Section 52 and Maintenance Payments’, British Tax Review 1985: 329–33Google Scholar

Tiley, J, (1987a), ‘Judicial Anti-avoidance Doctrines: The U.S. Alternatives – Part I’, British Tax Review 1987: 180–97Google Scholar

Tiley, J. (1987b), ‘Judicial Anti-avoidance Doctrines: The U.S. Alternatives – Part II’, British Tax Review 1987: 220–44Google Scholar

Tiley, J. (1988a), ‘Judicial Anti-Avoidance Doctrines: Some Problem Areas’, British Tax Review 1988: 63–103Google Scholar

Tiley, J. (1988b), ‘Judicial Anti-Avoidance Doctrines: Corporations and Conclusions’, British Tax Review 1988: 108–45.Google Scholar

Tiley, J. (1989), ‘Case Comment, Craven (Inspector of Taxes) v. White (Stephen)’, British Tax Review, 1989: 20–8Google Scholar

Tiley, J. (1990), ‘Double Taxation – Visiting Academics’, Cambridge Law Journal 49: 225–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tiley, J. (1992), ‘Trading Tax Matters in the House of Lords’, Cambridge Law Journal 51: 443–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tiley, J. (1995), ‘Taxation – Exploring the New Approach’, Cambridge Law Journal 54: 258–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tiley, J. (1998a), ‘Away from a Virtuous Tax System’, British Tax Review 1998: 317–47Google Scholar

Tiley, J (1998b), ‘Human Rights and Taxpayers’ Cambridge Law Journal 57: 269–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tiley,, J. (1999), ‘United Kingdom’, in Roch, M. T. Soler (ed.), Family Taxation in Europe (London: Kluwer Law International), pp. 129–50Google Scholar

Tiley, J. (2001), ‘First Thoughts on Westmoreland’, British Tax Review 2001: 153–8Google Scholar

Tiley, J. (2004a), ‘Tax Avoidance Jurisprudence as Normal Law’, British Tax Review, 2004: 304–31Google Scholar

Tiley,, J. (2004b), ‘United Kingdom’, in Ault, H. and Arnold, B. (eds.), Comparative Income Taxation: A Structural Analysis, 2nd edition (Amsterdam: Kluwer Law International), pp. 115–36Google Scholar

Tiley,, J. (2004c), ‘Aspects of Schedule A’, in Tiley, J. (ed.), Studies in the History of Tax Law (Oxford, Hart Publishing), pp. 81–97Google Scholar

Tiley, J. (2005a), ‘Barclays and Scottish Provident: Avoidance and Highest Courts; Less Chaos but More Uncertainty’, British Tax Review 2005: pp. 273–80Google Scholar

Tiley, J. (2005b), Revenue Law, 5th edition (London: Hart Publishing)Google Scholar

Tiley, J. (2006a), ‘50 years: Tax, Law and Academia’, British Tax Review 2006: 229–48Google Scholar

Tiley, J. (2006b), ‘Tax, Marriage and the Family’, Cambridge Law Journal 65: 289–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tiley, J. (2007), ‘Death and Taxes’, British Tax Review 2007: 300–19Google Scholar

Tiley, J. and Jensen, E. (1998), ‘The Control of Avoidance: The United States Experience’, British Tax Review 1998: 161–85.Google Scholar

Travers, T. N. (2004), ‘“The real value of the lands”: the Nawabs, the British and the Land Tax in Eighteenth-century Bengal’, Modern Asian Studies 38: 517–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Trombitas, E. (2004), ‘The Abracadabra Effect and Tax Avoidance – Comments on Inland Revenue's Exposure Draft INA0009: Interpretation of Sections B61 and 6B1 of the Income Tax Act 2004 – Part 1’, New Zealand Journal of Taxation Law and Policy 10(4): 353–89Google Scholar

Trombitas, E. (2005), ‘The Abracadabra Effect and Tax Avoidance – Comments on Inland Revenue's Exposure Draft INA0009: Interpretation of Sections B61 and 6B1 of the Income Tax Act 2004 – Part 2’, New Zealand Journal of Taxation Law and Policy 11(1): 37–68Google Scholar

United Kingdom (1801–), Parliamentary Papers (Blue Books) (London: HMSO)

United Kingdom (1829–91), Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 3rd Series (London: Baldwin and Cradock)

United Kingdom (1870a), Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue: 13th Report, in United Kingdom (1801–), 1870 [C.82-I] XX. 377

United Kingdom (1870b), Report of G J Goschen … on the Progressive Increase of Local Taxation, in United Kingdom (1801–), 1870 (470) LV.177

United Kingdom (1886–90), Report and Proceedings, Select Committee on Town Holdings, in United Kingdom (1801–), 1886 (213) Ⅻ.367, 1887 (260) XIII.41, 1888 (313) XXII.1, 1889 (251) XV.1, 1890 (341) XVIII.1, 1890–91 (325) XVIII.15, 1892 (214) XVIII.613

United Kingdom (1920), Report of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax, in United Kingdom (1801–), 1920 Cmd. 615 XVIII.97

United Kingdom (1951), Report of the Committee on the Taxation of Trading Profits, in United Kingdom (1801–), 1950–51 Cmd. 8189 XX.1

United Kingdom (1972), Reform of Corporation Tax, in United Kingdom (1801–), 1971–72 Cmnd. 4955 XXXIX.1

United Kingdom (1974), Wealth Tax, in United Kingdom (1801–), 1974 Cmnd. 5704 XVII.525

United Kingdom (1975), Minutes of Evidence of Select Committee on a Wealth Tax, in United Kingdom (1801-), 1974–75 (696-II) XVIII.785

United Kingdom (1994), Restitution: Mistakes of Law and Ultra Vires Public Authority Receipts and Payments, Law Commission Report No. 227 (London: The Stationery Office)

United Kingdom (2007), ‘Treasury: Small Businesses and Settlements Legislation’, Written Ministerial Statement of 26 July by Angela Eagle, available at www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2007-07-26a.89WS.5

United States (1962), ‘Model Tax Conventions’, in Joint Committee of Internal Revenue Taxation, Legislative History of United States Tax Conventions (Washington: US Government Printing Office), vol. 4, available at http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/oztexts/parsons.html, items 3 and 4

United States (1982), Legislation Relating to Tax-Motivated Corporate Mergers and Acquisitions: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures of the House Committee on Ways and Means, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 90

United States (2004), ‘American Jobs Creation Act of 2004: Conference Report, Statement of Conference Managers’, H. R. Rep. No. 108–755 at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Links.asp?section=1639

United States (2005), ‘Summary of Joint Committee Staff “Options to Improve Tax Compliance and Reform Tax Expenditures”’ JCX-19-05R, 12 April 2005 at www.house.gov/jct/x-19-05r.pdf

Vanistendael, F. (2006), ‘Halifax and Cadbury Schweppes: One Single Theory of Abuse in Tax Law?’, EC Tax Review 15: 192–5Google Scholar

Vinther, N. and Werlauff, E. (2006), ‘Tax Motives are Legal Motives – The Borderline between the Use and the Abuse of the Freedom of Establishment with Reference to the Cadbury Schweppes Case’, European Taxation 46: 383–6Google Scholar

Virgo, G. (1993), ‘The Law of Taxation is Not An Island – Overpaid Taxes and the Law of Restitution’, British Tax Review 1993: 442–67Google Scholar

Virgo, G, (2004), ‘Deutsche Morgan Grenfell: Restitution of Tax Paid by Mistake’, British Tax Review 2004: 8–14Google Scholar

Virgo, G. (2005), ‘Deutsche Morgan Grenfell: the Right to Restitution of Tax Paid by Mistake Rejected’, British Tax Review 2005: 281–6Google Scholar

Virgo, G. (2006), The Principles of the Law of Restitution, 2nd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Waincymer,, J. (1997), ‘The Australian Tax Avoidance Experience and Responses: A Critical Review’, in Cooper, G. S. (ed.), Tax Avoidance and the Rule of Law (Amsterdam: IBFD), pp. 247–306.Google Scholar

Ward, W. R. (1953), The English Land Tax in the Eighteenth Century (London: Oxford University Press)Google Scholar

Ward, D. A., Jones, Avery J. F.et al. (1985), ‘The Business Purpose Test and Abuse of Rights’, British Tax Review 1985: 68–123Google Scholar

Ward, D. A. and Cullity, M. C. (1981), ‘Abuse of Rights and the Business Purpose Test as Applied to Taxing Statutes’, Canadian Tax Journal 29(4): 451–75Google Scholar

Weisbach, D. A. (1999), ‘Formalism in the Tax Law’, University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 66, pp. 860–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weisbach, D. A. (2001), ‘The Failure of Disclosure as an Approach to Tax Shelters’, SMU Law Review 54: 71–82Google Scholar

Weisbach, D. A. (2002), ‘Ten Truths about Tax Shelters’, Tax Law Review 55: 215–53Google Scholar

Wheatcroft, G. S. A. and Bramwell, R. M. (eds.), (1963–), British Tax Encyclopedia (London: Sweet & Maxwell)Google Scholar

Wolfman, B. (1981), ‘The Supreme Court in the Lyons Den: A Failure of Judicial Process’, Cornell Law Review 66: 1075–102Google Scholar

Wolfman, B. (2004), ‘Why Economic Substance is Better Left Uncodified’, Tax Notes 104: 445Google Scholar

Wolfman, B., Holden, J. P. and Harris, K. L. (2006), Standards of Tax Practice 2006 Supplement (Falls Church: Tax Analysts)Google Scholar

Lord Wright of Durley (1939), Legal Essays and Addresses (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

Yin, G. K. (2001), ‘Getting Serious about Corporate Tax Shelters: Taking a Lesson from History’, SMU Law Review 54: 209–37Google Scholar

Zelenak, L. (2001), ‘Codifying Anti-avoidance Doctrines and Controlling Corporate Tax Shelters’, SMU Law Review 54: 177–93Google Scholar

Zimmer, F. (2002), ‘General Report’, in International Fiscal Association (2002), pp. 19–67

Allen, R. C. (1992), Enclosure and the Yeoman: The Agricultural Development of the South Midlands, 1450–1850 (Oxford: Oxford University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

American Bar Association Section of Taxation (2007), ‘Economic Substance Codification: ABA has “Substantial Reservations”’, Tax Notes 115: 389–96

Apps, P. and Rees, R. (2007), The Taxation of Couples, IZA Discussion Paper No. 2910 (Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor) at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1000899Google Scholar

Aprill, E. P. (2001), ‘Tax Shelters, Tax Law, and Morality: Codifying Judicial Doctrines’, SMU Law Review 54: 9–35Google Scholar

Arnold, B. J. (2004), ‘Tax Treaties and Tax Avoidance: The 2003 Revisions to the Commentary to the OECD Model Convention’, Bulletin for International Fiscal Documentation 58(6): 488–511Google Scholar

Arnold, B. J. (2006a), ‘Confusion Worse Confounded: The Supreme Court's GAAR Decisions’, Canadian Tax Journal 54: 167–209Google Scholar

Arnold, B. J. (2006b), ‘The Supreme Court and the Interpretation of Tax Statutes – Again’, Canadian Tax Journal 54: 677–84Google Scholar

Arnold, B. J. and Wilson, J. R. (1988), ‘The General Anti-Avoidance Rule – Part II’, Canadian Tax Journal 36: 1123–85Google Scholar

Atiyah,, P. S. and Summers,, R. S. (1987), Form and Substance in Anglo-American Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press)Google Scholar

Auerbach, A (2006), ‘The Future of Capital Income Taxation’, Fiscal Studies 27: 399–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jones, Avery J. F. (1983), ‘The Leedale Affair’, British Tax Review 1983: 70–2Google Scholar

Jones, Avery J. F. (2007), ‘The History of the United Kingdom's First Comprehensive Double Tax Agreement’, British Tax Review 2007: 211–54Google Scholar

Jones, Avery J. F.et al. (2006), ‘The Origins of Concepts and Expressions Used in the OECD Model and their Adoption by States’, Bulletin for International Taxation 60: 220–54Google Scholar

Bagchi, A. K. (1990), ‘Land Tax, Property Rights and Peasant Insecurity in Colonial India’, Journal of Peasant Studies 20: 1–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, J. H. (2002), An Introduction to English Legal History, 4th edition (London: Butterworths)Google Scholar

Baker, P. (2000), ‘Taxation and the European Convention on Human Rights’, British Tax Review 2000: 211–377Google Scholar

Ballance, J. (1887), A National Land Policy Based on the Principle of State Ownership (Wellington: Lyon and Blair)Google Scholar

Baltus, F. (2006), ‘Les “Pratiques Abusives” en Matière de TVA’, Journal de Droit Fiscal 80: 338–60Google Scholar

Bank, S. A. (2001), ‘Codifying Judicial Doctrines: No Cure for Rules but More Rules?’, SMU Law Review 54: 37–45Google Scholar

Banks, J. and Blundell, R. (2005), ‘Private Pension Arrangements and Retirement in Britain’, Fiscal Studies 26: 35–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bankman, J. (2004), ‘The Tax Shelter Problem’, National Tax Journal 57: 925–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bassett, J. (2004), ‘Atkinson, Sir Harry Albert (1831–1892)’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press), online edition: www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/844Google Scholar

Beale, L. M. (2006), ‘Tax Advice Before the Return: The Case for Raising Standards and Denying Evidentiary Privileges’, Virginia Tax Review 25: 583–669Google Scholar

Beatson,, J. (2006), ‘Unlawful Statutes and Mistakes of Law: Is there a Smile on the Face of Schrödinger's Cat?’, in Burrows, A. and Rodger, A. (eds.), Mapping the Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 163–80Google Scholar

Beattie, C. N. and Tiley, J. (1970), Beattie's Elements of Estate Duty, 7th edition (London: Butterworths)Google Scholar

Beckett, J. V. (1985), ‘Land Tax or Excise: The Levying of Taxation in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century England’, English Historical Review 100: 285–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beckett, J. V. and Turner, M. E. (1990), ‘Taxation and Economic Growth in Eighteenth-Century England’, Economic History Review 43: 377–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Belich, J. (2006), ‘Grey, Sir George (1812–1898)’,in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press), online edition: www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/11534Google Scholar

Birks, P. (2005), Unjust Enrichment, 2nd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bittker, B., McMahon, M. and Zelenak, L. (2002), Federal Income Taxation of Individuals (New York: Warren, Gorham & Lamont)Google Scholar

Bowler, T. (2007), Taxation of the Family, Tax Law Review Committee Discussion Paper No. 6 (London: Institute for Fiscal Studies)Google Scholar

Brenner, R. (1976), ‘Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-industrial Europe’, Past and Present70: 30–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bridgland, N. (2006), ‘The EU Code of Conduct to Eliminate Harmful or Potentially Harmful Business Tax Regimes: The Future’, Tax Planning International European Union Focus 8(1): 8–11Google Scholar

Brooking, T. (2004), ‘McKenzie, Sir John (1839–1901)’, inOxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press), online edition: www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/34752Google Scholar

Brooks, N. (1985), ‘Future Directions in Canadian Tax Law Scholarship’, Osgoode Hall Law Journal 23: 441–75Google Scholar

Bulkeley, W. M. (2007), ‘IBM's Under-the-wire Tax Break’, Wall Street Journal, 7June 2007, p. A3Google Scholar

Buxton, J. (1888), Finance and Politics: An Historical Study. 1783–1885, 2 vols. (London: John Murray)Google Scholar

Canada, (1988), Explanatory Notes to Legislation Relating to Income Tax, June (Ottawa: Department of Finance)Google Scholar

Canellos, P. C. (2001), ‘A Tax Practitioner's Perspective on Substance, Form and Business Purpose in Structuring Business Transactions and in Tax Shelters’, SMU Law Review 54: 47–72Google Scholar

Charlesworth, N. (1984), ‘The Problem of Government Finance in British India: Taxation, Borrowing and the Allocation of Resources in the Inter-war Period’, Modern Asian Studies 19: 521–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chirelstein, M. A. and Zelenak, L. A. (2005), ‘Tax Shelters and the Search for a Silver Bullet’, Columbia Law Review 105: 1939–62Google Scholar

Chowdry, M. (2004), ‘Unjust Enrichment and Section 80(3) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994’, British Tax Review 2004: 620–37Google Scholar

Chowdry, M. (2005), ‘The Revenue's Response: A Time Bar on Claims’, Law Quarterly Review 121: 546–50Google Scholar

Chrétien, M. (1954), ‘Le rôles des organisations internationals dans le règlement des questions d'impôts entre les divers états’ Recueil des Cours 86-II: 1–116Google Scholar

Cobbett, W. (1812–1820), The Parliamentary History of England, From the Earliest Period to the Year 1803, Vols. 13–36 (London: Longman & Co.)Google Scholar

Cooper, G. S. (2001), ‘International Experience with General Anti-avoidance Rules’, SMU Law Review 54: 83–130Google Scholar

Cooper, G. S. (2006), ‘The Emerging High Court Jurisprudence on Part IVA’, University of Sydney Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series, No. 06/09 at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract_id=919480Google Scholar

Cornford, F. M. (1908), Microcosmographia Academica (Cambridge: Bowes & Bowes), available at www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/iau/cornford/cornford.htmlGoogle Scholar

Daunton, M. (1983), House and Home in the Victorian City: Working-Class Housing, 1850–1914 (London: Edward Arnold)Google Scholar

Daunton, M. (1995), Progress and Poverty: An Economic and Social History of Britain, 1700–1850 (Oxford, Oxford University Press)Google Scholar

Daunton, M. (2001), Trusting Leviathan: The Politics of Taxation in Britain, 1799–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)Google Scholar

Dawson, W. H. (1890), The Unearned Increment: Or, Reaping without Sowing (London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co.)Google Scholar

Degadt, C. and Hoorebeke, A. (2006), ‘New Belgian Anti-Abuse Measures: Belgian Legislator adopts Halifax Doctrine’, Tax Planning International European Union Focus 8(10): 14–15Google Scholar

Dodge, D. (1988),‘A New and More Coherent Approach to Tax Avoidance’, Canadian Tax Journal 36(1): 1–22Google Scholar

Douma, S. and Engelen, F. (2006), ‘Case Note: Halifax plc and Others v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise: The ECJ Applies the Abuse of Rights Doctrine in VAT Cases’, British Tax Review 2006: 429–40Google Scholar

Dowell, S. (1884), A History of Taxation and Taxes in England from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, 4 vols (London, Longmans & Co)Google Scholar

Dunbar, D. (2006), ‘Judicial Techniques for Controlling the New Zealand General Anti-Avoidance Rule: The Scheme and Purpose Approach, from Challenge Corporation to Peterson’, New Zealand Journal of Taxation Law and Policy 12: 324–96Google Scholar

Dyck, I. (1992), William Cobbett and Rural Popular Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)Google Scholar

Edelman, J. (2005), ‘Limitation Periods and the Theory of Unjust Enrichment’, Modern Law Review 68: 848–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar

European Commission (1997), ‘Towards Tax-Coordination in the European Union – A Package to Tackle Harmful Tax Competition’, 1 October 1997, COM (97)495 final

Feria, R. (2006a), ‘The European Court of Justice's Solution to Aggressive VAT Planning – Further Towards Legal Uncertainty?’, EC Tax Review 15: 27–35Google Scholar

Feria, R. (2006b), ‘Giving Themselves Extra VAT? The ECJ Ruling in Halifax’, British Tax Review 2006: 119–23Google Scholar

Fforde, M. (1990), Conservatism and Collectivism, 1886–1914 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press)Google Scholar

Financial Reform Association (1859), Report on Taxation. Direct and Indirect. Adopted by the Financial Reform Association, Liverpool, and Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science Held at Bradford, Oct. 1859 (Liverpool)

Freedman, J. (2004a), ‘Defining Taxpayer Responsibility: In Support of a General Anti-Avoidance Principle’, British Tax Review 2004: 332–57Google Scholar

Freedman,, J. (2004b), ‘Taxation Research as Legal Research’, in Lamb, M., Lymer, A., Freedman, J. and James, S. (eds.), Taxation: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Research (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 13–34Google Scholar

Freedman, J. (2005), ‘Converging Tracks? Recent Developments in Canadian and UK Approaches to Tax Avoidance’, Canadian Tax Journal 53(4): 1038–46Google Scholar

Galle, B. (2006), ‘Interpretative Theory and Tax Shelter Regulation’, Virginia Tax Review 26: 357–403Google Scholar

Gammie,, M. (1997), ‘A Perspective from the United Kingdom’, in Cooper, G. S. (ed.), Tax Avoidance and the Rule of Law (Amsterdam: IBFD Publications), pp. 181–218Google Scholar

Gammie, M. (2005), ‘Barclays and Canada Trustco: Further Comment from a UK Perspective’, Canadian Tax Journal 53(4): 1047–52Google Scholar

Gammie, M. (2006), ‘Sham and Reality: The Taxation of Composite Transactions’, British Tax Review 2006: 294–317Google Scholar

Gergen, M. P. (2002), ‘The Logic of Deterrence: Corporate Tax Shelters’, Tax Law Review 55: 255–86Google Scholar

Ginsburg, M. (1985), ‘The National Office Mission’, Tax Notes 27: 99–102Google Scholar

Ginter, D. E. (1992), A Measure of Wealth: The English Land Tax in Historical Analysis (London: Hambledon Press)Google Scholar

Glenn, H. (2007), ‘IRS Official, Practitioners Pan Economic Substance Doctrine Codification’, Tax Notes 115: 888Google Scholar

Goldsmith, P. (2007), We Won; You Lost. Eat That! A Political History of Tax in New Zealand Since 1840, unpublished manuscript

Goschen, G. J. (1872), Reports and Speeches on Local Taxation (London: Macmillan and Co.)Google Scholar

Granwell, A. and McGonigle, S. (2006), ‘US Tax Shelters: A UK Reprise?’, British Tax Review 2006: 170–208Google Scholar

Graetz, M. J. and O'Hear, M. M. (1997), ‘The “Original Intent” of US International Taxation’, Duke Law Journal 46: 1021–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Greg, W. R. (1860), ‘British Taxation’, Edinburgh Review 111: 254Google Scholar

George, H. (1880), Progress and Poverty: An Inquiry into the Cause of Industrial Depressions and of Increase of Want with Increase of Wealth. The Remedy (New York: D. Appleton & Co.)Google Scholar

Gunn, A. (2001), ‘The Use and Misuse of Antiabuse Rules: Lessons from the Partnership Antiabuse Regulations’, SMU Law Review 54: 159–76Google Scholar

Gustafson,, C. H. (1997), ‘The Politics and Practicalities of Checking Tax Avoidance in the United States’, in Cooper, G. S. (ed.), Tax Avoidance and the Rule of Law (Amsterdam: IBFD Publications), pp. 349–76Google Scholar

Halperin, D. (1995), ‘Are Anti-abuse Rules Appropriate?’, Tax Lawyer 48: 807–16Google Scholar

Hamer, D. (1988), The New Zealand Liberals: The Years of Power (Auckland: Auckland University Press)Google Scholar

Harris, P. (1996), Corporate/Shareholder Income Taxation and Allocating Taxing Rights Between Countries: A Comparison of Imputation Systems (Amsterdam: IBFD)Google Scholar

Harris, P. (1999), ‘An Historic View of the Principle and Options for Double Tax Relief’, British Tax Review, 1999: 469–89Google Scholar

Harris, P. (2000), ‘Origins of the 1963 OECD Model Series: Working Party 12 and Article 10’, Australian Tax Forum 15: 3–223Google Scholar

Harris, P. (2006), Income Tax in Common Law Jurisdictions: From the Origins to 1820 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harris, P. (2007a), ‘Fair in Love but not Taxation: The English Origin of the Australasian General Anti-Avoidance Rule – Part I’, Bulletin for International Taxation 61(2): 65–83Google Scholar

Harris, P. (2007b), ‘Fair in Love but not Taxation: The English Origin of the Australasian General Anti-Avoidance Rule – Part II’, Bulletin for International Taxation 61(3): 109–25Google Scholar

Harvard Law Review Association (2004) ‘Developments in the Law – Corporations and Society: V. Governmental Attempts to Stem the Rising Tide of Corporate Tax Shelters’, Harvard Law Review 117: 2249–71

Herman, T. (1999), ‘Tax Report’, Wall Street Journal, 10 February 1999, p. A1Google Scholar

HM Revenue & Customs, National Statistics at www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/

Hoffmann, L. (2005), ‘Tax Avoidance’, British Tax Review 2005: 197–206Google Scholar

International Fiscal Association (2002), Form and Substance in Tax Law, Cahiers de Droit Fiscal International, Vol. 87a (The Hague: Kluwer)

Kay, J. (1979), ‘The Economics of Tax Avoidance’, British Tax Review, 1979: 354–65Google Scholar

Kerridge, R. (2001), ‘Revenue Law by John Tiley’, British Tax Review, 2001: 283–7Google Scholar

Korb, D. (2007), ‘What a Difference Two Years Make! Remarks at the 2007 University of Southern California Tax Institute’, Tax Notes Today, 2007 TNT: 16–65Google Scholar

Lang, M. (2006), ‘Rechtsmissbrauch und Gemeinschaftsrecht’, Steuer und Wirtschaft International 16: 273–85Google Scholar

Lang, M. (2007), ‘Non-Discrimination: What Does History Teach Us?’, in Fiscalité et enterprise: politiques et pratiques: Mélanges en l'honneur de Jean Pierre Le Gall (Paris: Dalloz), pp. 103–8.Google Scholar

Lavoie, R. (2001), ‘Deputizing the Gunslingers: Co-Opting the Tax Bar into Dissuading Corporate Tax Shelters’, Virginia Tax Review 21: 43–99.Google Scholar

Leclercq, L. (2007), ‘Interacting Principles: The French Abuse of Law Concept and the EU Notion of Abusive Practices’, Bulletin for International Taxation 61(16): 235–44Google Scholar

Levy, H. (1911), Large and Small Holdings: A Study in English Agricultural Economics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)Google Scholar

Livingston, M. (1998), ‘Reinventing Tax Scholarship: Lawyers, Economists, and the Role of the Legal Academy’, Cornell Law Review 83: 365–436Google Scholar

Locher, P. (2007), ‘Rechtsmissbrauchsüberlegungen im Recht der direkten Steuern in der Schweiz’, Archiv für Schweizerisches Abgabenrecht 75: 675–700Google Scholar

McAlpin, M. B. (1983), Subject to Famine: Food Crises and Economic Change in Western India, 1860–1920 (Princeton: Princeton University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, H. L. (2007), ‘Abuse of Rights: The Effect of the Doctrine on VAT Planning’, British Tax Review 2007: 160–74Google Scholar

McCrudden, C. (2006), ‘Legal Research and the Social Sciences’, Law Quarterly Review 122: 632–50Google Scholar

McDaniel, P., McMahon, M.Simmons, D. and Abreu, A. (2004), Federal Income Taxation, Cases and Materials, 5th edition (New York: Foundation Press)Google Scholar

McInnes, M. (2003), ‘Interceptive Subtraction, Unjust Enrichment and Wrongs – A Reply to Professor Birks’, Cambridge Law Journal 62: 697–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McIvor, T. (1989), The Rainmaker: A Biography of John Ballance (Auckland: Heinemann Reed)Google Scholar

McIvor, T. (2004), ‘Ballance, John (1839–1893)’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press), online edition: www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1225Google Scholar

McMichael, P. (1984), Settlers and the Agrarian Question: Capitalism in Colonial Australia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Makkus, E. and Preter, J. (2006), ‘Abuse of Rights: The End of VAT Planning?’, Tax Planning International European Union Focus 8(3): 15–17Google Scholar

Mandler, P. (2001), ‘Art, Death and Taxes: The Taxation of Works of Art in Britain, 1796–1914’, Historical Research 74: 271–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mann, M. (1995), ‘A Permanent Settlement for the Ceded and Conquered Provinces: Revenue Administration in North India, 1801–33’, India Economic and Social History Review 32: 245–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Murray, A. and Carter, R. N. (1895), A Guide to Income-Tax Practice (London: Gee & Co.)Google Scholar

Meade, J. S. (1978), The Structure and Reform of Direct Taxation: report of a committee chaired by J. E. Meade (London: George Allen & Unwin)Google Scholar

Mehrotra, A. J. (2005), ‘Teaching Tax Stories’, Journal of Legal Education 55: 116–25Google Scholar

Morse, S. C. (2006), ‘The How and Why of the New Public Corporation Tax Shelter Compliance Norm’, Fordham Law Review 75: 961–1018Google Scholar

Moss, M. and Gillham, G. (2006), ‘Controlled Foreign Companies Legislation and the Abuse of Law’, Tax Planning International Review 33(12): 3–7Google Scholar

NevilleBrown, L. Brown, L. (1994), ‘Is there a General Principle of Abuse of Rights in European Community Law?’, in Curtin, D. and Heukels, T. (eds.), Institutional Dynamics of European Integration, Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, vol. II (Dordrecht/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff), pp. 511–26Google Scholar

New Zealand (1858–), Statistics of New Zealand for 1853, 1854, 1855, and 1856 (1857, etc.) … Compiled from official records (Auckland)

New Zealand (1893), ‘Statistical Summary of the Colony of New Zealand for the Years 1840–1852 (inclusive)’, in The New Zealand Official Year Book (Wellington: Government Printer)

Nutt, A. (2007), ‘O'Connor Cites Justice Gains in Combating Tax Shelters’, Tax Notes 115: 697Google Scholar

O'Brien, P. K. (1988), ‘The Political Economy of British Taxation, 1660–1815’, Economic History Review 41: 1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar

O'Brien, P. K. and Hunt, P. A. (1993), ‘The Rise of the Fiscal State in England, 1485–1815’, Historical Research 66: 129–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar

OECD (1963), Draft Model Double Taxation Convention on Income and Capital (Paris: OECD)

OECD (1985), Trends in International Taxation (Paris: OECD)

OECD (1992–), Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital, Committee on Fiscal Affairs (Paris: OECD)

OECD (1998), Harmful Tax Competition – An Emerging Global Issue (Paris: OECD)

OECD (1999), The Application of the OECD Model Tax Convention to Partnerships (Paris: OECD)

OECD (2000), Issues related to Article 14 of the OECD Model Tax Convention (Paris: OECD)

OEEC (1958), The Elimination of Double Taxation: Report of the Fiscal Committee of the OEEC (Paris: OEEC)

OEEC (1959), The Elimination of Double Taxation: 2nd Report by the Fiscal Committee of the OEEC (Paris: OEEC)

OEEC (1961), The Elimination of Double Taxation: Fourth Report of the Fiscal Committee of the OEEC (Paris: OEEC)

Offer, A. (1981), Property and Politics, 1870–1914: Landownership, Law, Ideology and Urban Development in England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)Google Scholar

Offer, A. (1989), The First World War: An Agrarian Interpretation (Oxford: Clarendon)Google Scholar

Oliver, J. D. B. (1998), ‘Ship-money’, British Tax Review 1998: 1–3Google Scholar

Park,, A. (1997), ‘Tax Law in and after the Wheatcroft Era’, in Rawlings, R. (ed.), Law, Society, and Economy (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 131–45Google Scholar

Pearlman, R. A. (2002), ‘Demystifying Disclosure: First Steps’, Tax Law Review 55: 289–324Google Scholar

Pedroli, A. (2007), ‘L'elusione fiscale nel diritto italiano’, Archiv für Schweizerisches Abgabenrecht 75: 701–26Google Scholar

Posner, R. A. (1987), ‘The Decline of Law as an Autonomous Discipline 1962–1987’, Harvard Law Review 100(4): 761–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Raad, K. (1987), 1963 and 1977 OECD Model Income Tax Treaties and Commentaries (Deventer: Kluwer)Google Scholar

Raskolnikov, A. (2006), ‘Crime and Punishment in Taxation: Deceit, Deterrence, and the Self-Adjusting Penalty’, Columbia Law Review 106: 569–642Google Scholar

Reeder, D. A. (1961), ‘The Politics of Urban Leaseholds in Late Victorian England’, International Review of Social History 6: 413–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ricardo,, D. (1951), On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, in Sraffa, P. and Dobb, M. H. (eds.), The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), vol. 1Google Scholar

Richardson, J. W. (1967), ‘Correspondence’, British Tax Review 1967: 153Google Scholar

Ridsdale, M. (2006), ‘Halifax and others v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Case C-255/02)’, Tax Planning International Review 33(3): 10–11Google Scholar

Rostain, T. (2006),'Sheltering Lawyers: The Organized Bar and the Tax Shelter Industry', Yale Journal on Regulation 23: 77–120Google Scholar

Rousselle, O. and Liebman, H. M. (2006), ‘The Doctrine of Abuse of Community Law: The Sword of Damocles Hanging over the Head of EC Corporate Tax Law?’, European Taxation 46: 559–64Google Scholar

Rush, M. (2006), The Defence of Passing On (Oxford: Hart Publishing)Google Scholar

Rutherford, J. (1961), Sir George Grey, 1812–1898: A Study in Colonial Government (London: Cassell)Google Scholar

Schizer, D. M. (2006), ‘Enlisting the Tax Bar’, Tax Law Review 59: 331–72Google Scholar

Schler, M. L. (2002), ‘Ten More Truths About Tax Shelters: The Problem, Possible Solutions, and a Reply to Professor Weisbach’, Tax Law Review 55: 325–95Google Scholar

Schön, W. (1996), ‘Gestaltungsmissbrauch im Europäischen Steuerrecht’, Internationales Steuerrecht 5(2): AppendixGoogle Scholar

Schön, W. (2000), ‘Tax Competition in Europe – the Legal Perspective’, EC Tax Review 9: 90–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schön,, W. (2002), ‘Der “Rechtsmissbrauch” im Europäischen Gesellschaftsrecht’, in Wank, R.et al. (ed.), Festschrift für Herbert Wiedemann zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich: C. H. Beck) p. 1271 et seq.Google Scholar

Schön, W. (2006a), ‘The Mobility of Companies and the Organizational Freedom of Company Founders’, European Company and Financial Law Review 3: 122–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schön,, W. (2006b), ‘State Aid in the Area of Taxation’, in Hancher, L.Ottervanger, T. and Slot, P. J. (eds.), EC State Aids, 3rd edition (London: Thomson/Sweet & Maxwell, London), pp. 241–76.Google Scholar

Sheppard, L. (2007), ‘Bad LILO Facts Make Good Law?’, Tax Notes 114: 733–41Google Scholar

Silsby, W. and Smith, I. (2007), ‘BATR (Badger and Toad Relief)’, Taxation 160(4115): 39–42Google Scholar

Silverman, M., Lerner, M. and Kidder, G. (2006), ‘The Economic Substance Doctrine: Sorting Through the Federal Circuit's “We Know It When We See It” Ruling in Coltec’, The Tax Executive 58: 423–41Google Scholar

Simmonds, S. (2007), ‘Government Continues Winning Streak in Shelter Litigation’, Tax Notes 115: 913Google Scholar

Simpson, P. (2006), ‘Case Note: Cadbury Schweppes plc v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue: the ECJ Sets Strict Test for CFC Legislation’, British Tax Review 2006: 677–83Google Scholar

Sinclair, K. (1957), Origins of the Maori Wars (Wellington: New Zealand University Press)Google Scholar

Stratton, S. (2007), ‘Black & Decker to Settle; Bigger Case on Horizon’, Tax Notes 114: 980Google Scholar

Stevens, R. (2005), ‘Justified Enrichment’, Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 5: 141–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stokes, E. (1959), The English Utilitarians and India (Oxford: Clarendon Press)Google Scholar

Stopforth, D. (1987), ‘The Background to the Anti-Avoidance Provisions Concerning Settlements by Parents on their Minor Children’, British Tax Review 1987: 417–33Google Scholar

Stopforth, D. (1992), ‘1922–36: Halcyon Days for the Tax Avoider’, British Tax Review 1992: 88–105Google Scholar

Surrey, S. S. (1969), ‘Complexity and the Internal Revenue Code: The Problem of the Management of Tax Detail’, Law & Contemporary Problems 34: 673–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tailby, C. (2006), ‘Halifax – A Basis for Optimism?’, The Tax Journal833(17 April): 4–6.Google Scholar

Tax Analysts (2007), ‘Senate Finance Tax Counsel Says Codification of Economic Substance Likely’, Tax Notes Today 2007 TNT: 97–3

Tax Analysts (electronic), Worldwide Tax Treaties (Falls Church: Tax Analysts), available at www.taxanalysts.com

Tempel, A. J. (1967), Relief from Double Taxation (Amsterdam: IBFD)Google Scholar

Tennant, C. (1856), The People's Blue Book: Taxation As It Is and As It Ought to Be, 2nd edition (1857), 3rd edition (1862), 4th edition (1872) (London: Longmans, Green & Co)Google Scholar

Thomas, P. J. (1939), The Growth of Federal Finance in India (Madras: Oxford University Press)Google Scholar

Thompson,, F. M. L. (2002), ‘Changing Perceptions of Land Tenures in Britain, 1750–1914’, in Winch, D. and O'Brien, P. K. (eds.), The Political Economy of British Historical Experience, 1688–1914 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 119–38Google Scholar

Tiley, J. (1980), ‘Widowhood Anomalies’, British Tax Review 1980: 216–18Google Scholar

Tiley,, J. (1985a), ‘An Academic Perspective on the Ramsay/Dawson Doctrine’, in Dyson, J. (ed.), Recent Tax Problems (London: Stevens & Sons), pp. 19–27Google Scholar

Tiley, J (1985b), ‘Section 52 and Maintenance Payments’, British Tax Review 1985: 329–33Google Scholar

Tiley, J, (1987a), ‘Judicial Anti-avoidance Doctrines: The U.S. Alternatives – Part I’, British Tax Review 1987: 180–97Google Scholar

Tiley, J. (1987b), ‘Judicial Anti-avoidance Doctrines: The U.S. Alternatives – Part II’, British Tax Review 1987: 220–44Google Scholar

Tiley, J. (1988a), ‘Judicial Anti-Avoidance Doctrines: Some Problem Areas’, British Tax Review 1988: 63–103Google Scholar

Tiley, J. (1988b), ‘Judicial Anti-Avoidance Doctrines: Corporations and Conclusions’, British Tax Review 1988: 108–45.Google Scholar

Tiley, J. (1989), ‘Case Comment, Craven (Inspector of Taxes) v. White (Stephen)’, British Tax Review, 1989: 20–8Google Scholar

Tiley, J. (1990), ‘Double Taxation – Visiting Academics’, Cambridge Law Journal 49: 225–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tiley, J. (1992), ‘Trading Tax Matters in the House of Lords’, Cambridge Law Journal 51: 443–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tiley, J. (1995), ‘Taxation – Exploring the New Approach’, Cambridge Law Journal 54: 258–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tiley, J. (1998a), ‘Away from a Virtuous Tax System’, British Tax Review 1998: 317–47Google Scholar

Tiley, J (1998b), ‘Human Rights and Taxpayers’ Cambridge Law Journal 57: 269–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tiley,, J. (1999), ‘United Kingdom’, in Roch, M. T. Soler (ed.), Family Taxation in Europe (London: Kluwer Law International), pp. 129–50Google Scholar

Tiley, J. (2001), ‘First Thoughts on Westmoreland’, British Tax Review 2001: 153–8Google Scholar

Tiley, J. (2004a), ‘Tax Avoidance Jurisprudence as Normal Law’, British Tax Review, 2004: 304–31Google Scholar

Tiley,, J. (2004b), ‘United Kingdom’, in Ault, H. and Arnold, B. (eds.), Comparative Income Taxation: A Structural Analysis, 2nd edition (Amsterdam: Kluwer Law International), pp. 115–36Google Scholar

Tiley,, J. (2004c), ‘Aspects of Schedule A’, in Tiley, J. (ed.), Studies in the History of Tax Law (Oxford, Hart Publishing), pp. 81–97Google Scholar

Tiley, J. (2005a), ‘Barclays and Scottish Provident: Avoidance and Highest Courts; Less Chaos but More Uncertainty’, British Tax Review 2005: pp. 273–80Google Scholar

Tiley, J. (2005b), Revenue Law, 5th edition (London: Hart Publishing)Google Scholar

Tiley, J. (2006a), ‘50 years: Tax, Law and Academia’, British Tax Review 2006: 229–48Google Scholar

Tiley, J. (2006b), ‘Tax, Marriage and the Family’, Cambridge Law Journal 65: 289–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tiley, J. (2007), ‘Death and Taxes’, British Tax Review 2007: 300–19Google Scholar

Tiley, J. and Jensen, E. (1998), ‘The Control of Avoidance: The United States Experience’, British Tax Review 1998: 161–85.Google Scholar

Travers, T. N. (2004), ‘“The real value of the lands”: the Nawabs, the British and the Land Tax in Eighteenth-century Bengal’, Modern Asian Studies 38: 517–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Trombitas, E. (2004), ‘The Abracadabra Effect and Tax Avoidance – Comments on Inland Revenue's Exposure Draft INA0009: Interpretation of Sections B61 and 6B1 of the Income Tax Act 2004 – Part 1’, New Zealand Journal of Taxation Law and Policy 10(4): 353–89Google Scholar

Trombitas, E. (2005), ‘The Abracadabra Effect and Tax Avoidance – Comments on Inland Revenue's Exposure Draft INA0009: Interpretation of Sections B61 and 6B1 of the Income Tax Act 2004 – Part 2’, New Zealand Journal of Taxation Law and Policy 11(1): 37–68Google Scholar

United Kingdom (1801–), Parliamentary Papers (Blue Books) (London: HMSO)

United Kingdom (1829–91), Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 3rd Series (London: Baldwin and Cradock)

United Kingdom (1870a), Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue: 13th Report, in United Kingdom (1801–), 1870 [C.82-I] XX. 377

United Kingdom (1870b), Report of G J Goschen … on the Progressive Increase of Local Taxation, in United Kingdom (1801–), 1870 (470) LV.177

United Kingdom (1886–90), Report and Proceedings, Select Committee on Town Holdings, in United Kingdom (1801–), 1886 (213) Ⅻ.367, 1887 (260) XIII.41, 1888 (313) XXII.1, 1889 (251) XV.1, 1890 (341) XVIII.1, 1890–91 (325) XVIII.15, 1892 (214) XVIII.613

United Kingdom (1920), Report of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax, in United Kingdom (1801–), 1920 Cmd. 615 XVIII.97

United Kingdom (1951), Report of the Committee on the Taxation of Trading Profits, in United Kingdom (1801–), 1950–51 Cmd. 8189 XX.1

United Kingdom (1972), Reform of Corporation Tax, in United Kingdom (1801–), 1971–72 Cmnd. 4955 XXXIX.1

United Kingdom (1974), Wealth Tax, in United Kingdom (1801–), 1974 Cmnd. 5704 XVII.525

United Kingdom (1975), Minutes of Evidence of Select Committee on a Wealth Tax, in United Kingdom (1801-), 1974–75 (696-II) XVIII.785

United Kingdom (1994), Restitution: Mistakes of Law and Ultra Vires Public Authority Receipts and Payments, Law Commission Report No. 227 (London: The Stationery Office)

United Kingdom (2007), ‘Treasury: Small Businesses and Settlements Legislation’, Written Ministerial Statement of 26 July by Angela Eagle, available at www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2007-07-26a.89WS.5

United States (1962), ‘Model Tax Conventions’, in Joint Committee of Internal Revenue Taxation, Legislative History of United States Tax Conventions (Washington: US Government Printing Office), vol. 4, available at http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/oztexts/parsons.html, items 3 and 4

United States (1982), Legislation Relating to Tax-Motivated Corporate Mergers and Acquisitions: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures of the House Committee on Ways and Means, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 90

United States (2004), ‘American Jobs Creation Act of 2004: Conference Report, Statement of Conference Managers’, H. R. Rep. No. 108–755 at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Links.asp?section=1639

United States (2005), ‘Summary of Joint Committee Staff “Options to Improve Tax Compliance and Reform Tax Expenditures”’ JCX-19-05R, 12 April 2005 at www.house.gov/jct/x-19-05r.pdf

Vanistendael, F. (2006), ‘Halifax and Cadbury Schweppes: One Single Theory of Abuse in Tax Law?’, EC Tax Review 15: 192–5Google Scholar

Vinther, N. and Werlauff, E. (2006), ‘Tax Motives are Legal Motives – The Borderline between the Use and the Abuse of the Freedom of Establishment with Reference to the Cadbury Schweppes Case’, European Taxation 46: 383–6Google Scholar

Virgo, G. (1993), ‘The Law of Taxation is Not An Island – Overpaid Taxes and the Law of Restitution’, British Tax Review 1993: 442–67Google Scholar

Virgo, G, (2004), ‘Deutsche Morgan Grenfell: Restitution of Tax Paid by Mistake’, British Tax Review 2004: 8–14Google Scholar

Virgo, G. (2005), ‘Deutsche Morgan Grenfell: the Right to Restitution of Tax Paid by Mistake Rejected’, British Tax Review 2005: 281–6Google Scholar

Virgo, G. (2006), The Principles of the Law of Restitution, 2nd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Waincymer,, J. (1997), ‘The Australian Tax Avoidance Experience and Responses: A Critical Review’, in Cooper, G. S. (ed.), Tax Avoidance and the Rule of Law (Amsterdam: IBFD), pp. 247–306.Google Scholar

Ward, W. R. (1953), The English Land Tax in the Eighteenth Century (London: Oxford University Press)Google Scholar

Ward, D. A., Jones, Avery J. F.et al. (1985), ‘The Business Purpose Test and Abuse of Rights’, British Tax Review 1985: 68–123Google Scholar

Ward, D. A. and Cullity, M. C. (1981), ‘Abuse of Rights and the Business Purpose Test as Applied to Taxing Statutes’, Canadian Tax Journal 29(4): 451–75Google Scholar

Weisbach, D. A. (1999), ‘Formalism in the Tax Law’, University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 66, pp. 860–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weisbach, D. A. (2001), ‘The Failure of Disclosure as an Approach to Tax Shelters’, SMU Law Review 54: 71–82Google Scholar

Weisbach, D. A. (2002), ‘Ten Truths about Tax Shelters’, Tax Law Review 55: 215–53Google Scholar

Wheatcroft, G. S. A. and Bramwell, R. M. (eds.), (1963–), British Tax Encyclopedia (London: Sweet & Maxwell)Google Scholar

Wolfman, B. (1981), ‘The Supreme Court in the Lyons Den: A Failure of Judicial Process’, Cornell Law Review 66: 1075–102Google Scholar

Wolfman, B. (2004), ‘Why Economic Substance is Better Left Uncodified’, Tax Notes 104: 445Google Scholar

Wolfman, B., Holden, J. P. and Harris, K. L. (2006), Standards of Tax Practice 2006 Supplement (Falls Church: Tax Analysts)Google Scholar

Lord Wright of Durley (1939), Legal Essays and Addresses (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

Yin, G. K. (2001), ‘Getting Serious about Corporate Tax Shelters: Taking a Lesson from History’, SMU Law Review 54: 209–37Google Scholar

Zelenak, L. (2001), ‘Codifying Anti-avoidance Doctrines and Controlling Corporate Tax Shelters’, SMU Law Review 54: 177–93Google Scholar

Zimmer, F. (2002), ‘General Report’, in International Fiscal Association (2002), pp. 19–67