Comparative standards of legal advice privilege for tax advisers and optimal reform proposals for English law
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12595759 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Rebecca Mitchell (0000-0002-2059-5449, Northumbria Law School, Northumbria University, UK, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2015 |
| Volume | 19 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 246-269 |
| Publication date | 2015-07-06 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The International Journal of Evidence & Proof (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1365-7127 • E-ISSN: 1740-5572 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/1365712715592832 |
| OpenAlex | W1958269141 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 5 |
The widely accepted rationale for legal advice privilege between client and lawyer applies equally to tax advisers giving their clients fiscal legal advice. This article undertakes a comprehensive comparative analysis of standards of legal advice privilege for tax advisers in the United States, New Zealand and Australia. It then reviews the current limited tax advisers’ privilege found in Sched. 36 to the Finance Act 2008. Based on evaluation of these comparative models, optimal proposals are made for a tax advisers’ privilege in English law
Advice (programming · Economics · Law and economics · Legal advice · Political science · Privilege (computing · Comparative and International Law Studies · Law · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Legal Education and Practice Innovations
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |