One minute with Sam Brodsky, barrister at Gray’s Inn Tax Chambers.
What’s keeping you busy at work?
I will be appearing in the Court of Appeal next month on an SDLT case. I have another case where permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal is outstanding concerning treaty residence. In the meantime, I am preparing for an FTT hearing on hydrocarbon oil duty amongst various other things.
What do you know now that you wish you’d known at the start of your career?
Advocacy is an incredibly nuanced skill. To be persuasive, my golden rules are: (1) be realistic rather than hyperbolic in the case you present (this wins the court’s trust); (2) it is better to show than to tell (considered reference to authority is inevitably more persuasive than bald assertion); (3) be crystal clear about the findings of fact and the findings of law which you want the tribunal to find (the job of the advocate is to guide the court to the destination, not simply to point out what the destination is).
If you could make one change to tax, what would it be?
The irrational marginal rates of tax that exist at certain income levels are impossible to justify, stagnate growth and should be scrapped. In an ideal world, all taxes on income would be subsumed under a single umbrella. Even the student loan repayment has become a hidden income tax.
I also think that more needs to be done to prevent hopeless avoidance schemes being marketed and sold (and profited from). Equally, it is absolutely crucial that this regulation never hinders taxpayers accessing genuine advice on the law. I do not think that the balance is correctly struck at the moment.
Are there any new trends you’re seeing in tax?
HMRC have had significant success in the last decade challenging artificial avoidance schemes. There is, however, a new frontier of cases where HMRC say that there was artificial avoidance, but to the taxpayer they were simply organising their affairs in a way specifically envisaged by the legislation. This is a new battleground. In the Fisher case ([2023] UKSC 44), the Supreme Court said that HMRC’s position was close to unconstitutional in one respect: the court’s role in policing the relationship between the state and the individual is as important as ever.
Finally, you might not know this about me but…
I taught law before coming to the Bar, in two quite different roles. The first was teaching in Spain to a student from a high-profile Syrian family. It was rather eye-opening! The second was teaching at Oxford – and I’m glad to see a number of my former students now at the Bar themselves including some at the Tax Bar. I still enjoy teaching and teach advocacy at the Inns when I can.
Outside of the law, I am father to an amazing seven-year old girl and a one-year old puppy. He is an incredibly handsome dog, so I have had to get used to being approached for photographs whenever we go out!
One minute with Sam Brodsky, barrister at Gray’s Inn Tax Chambers.
What’s keeping you busy at work?
I will be appearing in the Court of Appeal next month on an SDLT case. I have another case where permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal is outstanding concerning treaty residence. In the meantime, I am preparing for an FTT hearing on hydrocarbon oil duty amongst various other things.
What do you know now that you wish you’d known at the start of your career?
Advocacy is an incredibly nuanced skill. To be persuasive, my golden rules are: (1) be realistic rather than hyperbolic in the case you present (this wins the court’s trust); (2) it is better to show than to tell (considered reference to authority is inevitably more persuasive than bald assertion); (3) be crystal clear about the findings of fact and the findings of law which you want the tribunal to find (the job of the advocate is to guide the court to the destination, not simply to point out what the destination is).
If you could make one change to tax, what would it be?
The irrational marginal rates of tax that exist at certain income levels are impossible to justify, stagnate growth and should be scrapped. In an ideal world, all taxes on income would be subsumed under a single umbrella. Even the student loan repayment has become a hidden income tax.
I also think that more needs to be done to prevent hopeless avoidance schemes being marketed and sold (and profited from). Equally, it is absolutely crucial that this regulation never hinders taxpayers accessing genuine advice on the law. I do not think that the balance is correctly struck at the moment.
Are there any new trends you’re seeing in tax?
HMRC have had significant success in the last decade challenging artificial avoidance schemes. There is, however, a new frontier of cases where HMRC say that there was artificial avoidance, but to the taxpayer they were simply organising their affairs in a way specifically envisaged by the legislation. This is a new battleground. In the Fisher case ([2023] UKSC 44), the Supreme Court said that HMRC’s position was close to unconstitutional in one respect: the court’s role in policing the relationship between the state and the individual is as important as ever.
Finally, you might not know this about me but…
I taught law before coming to the Bar, in two quite different roles. The first was teaching in Spain to a student from a high-profile Syrian family. It was rather eye-opening! The second was teaching at Oxford – and I’m glad to see a number of my former students now at the Bar themselves including some at the Tax Bar. I still enjoy teaching and teach advocacy at the Inns when I can.
Outside of the law, I am father to an amazing seven-year old girl and a one-year old puppy. He is an incredibly handsome dog, so I have had to get used to being approached for photographs whenever we go out!
.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=c9a7a0cc_1)
