英语翻译It is now thirty years since the seminal case of Ramsay,

英语翻译
It is now thirty years since the seminal case of Ramsay,in which the House of Lords endorsed a limited “substance over form” doctrine in applying United Kingdom tax law.The “Ramsay principle” quickly became one of HMRC’s favourite weapons against tax avoidance schemes.What exactly the Ramsay principle was,and how far it extended,was the battleground for many cases in the years that followed.
HMRC saw it as allowing them to disregard steps inserted into transactions purely for tax purposes,and some of the earlier decisions lent support to this view.However,in MacNiven3 the House of Lords reemphasised that the Ramsay principle was simply one of purposive statutory construction.Moreover,some statutes (those referring to “commercial” concepts) could be more readily applied to the economic substance of transactions than others (which used “legal” concepts).
MacNiven was controversial within the judiciary and there remained a feeling of uncertainty.In Mawson4 the House of Lords was urged by the tax profession to give definitive guidance as to what the Ramsay principle meant.The Lords gave a single judgment in order to “achieve some clarity about basic principles”.They reiterated that the principle was one of statutory construction:the courts should construe the relevant statutory provisions purposively and apply them to the transaction in question,viewed realistically.They did,however,step back from the elusive distinction made in MacNiven between “commercial” and “legal” concepts.
The judgment in Mawson appeared to have rendered a number of decisions over the previous twenty-five years irrelevant.But clarity has still been elusive.Some judges – particularly at first instance – have been ready to go back to the cases before Mawson in applying the Ramsay principle.
Two cases,both on marketed income tax avoidance schemes,have recently given the higher courts another opportunity to shine some light in this area.The Court of Appeal gave judgment in Mayes5 on
April 12,the Supreme Court in Tower MCashback6 on May 11.

逐字推敲,手打不易,
拉姆齐案件距今已有三十年了,在这个案件中,上议院部分采用了英国税法中应用的“实质重于形式”主义原则.“拉姆奇原则”迅速成为英国皇家税务及海关总署（HMRC）攻击避税计划的利器.在随后的几年里,拉姆齐的原则是什么,应用有多广,很多情况下是辩论双方争执的焦点,.
英国皇家税务及海关总署（HMRC）把这视为允许他们打着税因的幌子无视流程,强行插手交易
的信号.事实上之前的一些决策似乎印证了这一观点.然而,在MacNiven3上议院的重申,拉姆塞原则是特指的法定解释.此外,一些法规(指的是“商业”的概念)可能比其他(用“法律”的概念)
更容易地应用到实质的经济交易.MacNiven在司法制度中是有争议的,并且给人一种悬而未决的感觉.在Mawson4税务行业要求上议院就给拉姆塞原则给以权威性的限定性的解释.而上议院为了明确某些基本原则给了一个判断.他们重申拉姆塞原则只是一个法定法定解释:法院应该就有关法律的规定做出特定解释并把它们应用到实际的交易的问题中.然而,他们的确作了解释,只不过是把MacNiven案例中“商业”与“法定”之间的概念区别进一步混淆了.
在Mawson案例中,判断似乎在强调过去的25年很多已经无关紧要的决定.但所谓的清晰,仍是难以捉摸.一些法官- - - - - - - - - - - -尤其一审判决中的法官准备回到 在Mawson 案件之前运用拉姆的原则的案例.
2例,均为销售收入避税计划,最近得到上级法院开庭重审的机会.上诉法院的判决定于
4月12日在Mayes5 举行.
5月11日,最高法院在塔内开庭.