In August, the Government put out a consultative paper on the Reform of Corporation Tax.

Stating that the objective was "to produce a regime that is modern and competitive and reflects the realities of the business environment", the consultative document said that further reforms were being considered in the area of the tax treatment of capital assets not covered by earlier reforms, rationalisation of the schedular system and "differences in the tax treatment of trading and investment companies".

Cynics might say either that this is reform for reform's sake, or that it is an attempt to create a tax system that has fewer gaps and, therefore, a potentially greater return for the Government.
As the debate on the question of whether or not the UK should have a general anti-avoidance rule showed, there is a fundamental point of principle to be resolved in relation to any tax system. Should the rules be specific and hard-edged so that citizens always know with certainty the exact circumstances in which the state is entitled to deprive them of their hard earned funds, but the state then takes the risk of gaps in the legislation or the legislation not keeping pace with commercial developments? Or should the rules be softer and give more discretion to the state's tax collectors through more generally phrased anti-avoidance rules?