Counterfactual Arguments Against Woolwich Liability

'Counter-Factual Arguments against Woolwich Liability' in Andrew Dyson, James Goudkamp and Frederick Wilmot-Smith (eds) Defences in Unjust Enrichment (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2016) 279-307

22 Pages Posted: 12 Oct 2016

See all articles by Charles Mitchell

Charles Mitchell

University College London - Faculty of Laws

Date Written: January 1, 2016

Abstract

The paper considers the argument that a tax authority which has received money paid as tax which is not due should be entitled to keep it because a valid tax liability would have arisen, had the invalid tax payment not been made. This can meaningfully be conceptualised as an argument either that the tax authority has not been enriched, or if it has been, that it can subjectively devalue its enrichment or raise a change of position defence to the taxpayer's claim. However, tax authorities should not be permitted to make any of these arguments because they undermine the rule of law which constrains executive action by requiring tax levies to be mandated by due process.

Keywords: Unjust enrichment, restitution, overpaid tax, tax law, rule of law

Suggested Citation

Mitchell, Charles, Counterfactual Arguments Against Woolwich Liability (January 1, 2016). 'Counter-Factual Arguments against Woolwich Liability' in Andrew Dyson, James Goudkamp and Frederick Wilmot-Smith (eds) Defences in Unjust Enrichment (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2016) 279-307, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2848817

Charles Mitchell (Contact Author)

University College London - Faculty of Laws ( email )

Bentham House
4-8 Endsleigh Gardens
London, WC1E OEG
United Kingdom

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
219
Abstract Views
605
Rank
252,717
PlumX Metrics