
Last year we obtained a legal opinion from Farrer’s & Co which concluded that it was not possible to construe a director’s duty to maximise benefits to a company to include a positive duty to avoid tax. This opinion has helped to nail the urban myth (widely propagated by tax planners to their clients) that failure to engage actively in tax avoidance would constitute a breach of fiduciary duties.
Our attention has now been drawn to a blog by an influential U.S. lawyer noting the UK legal opinion and asking whether the same applies in the United States. The article addresses the issue of whether the business judgement rule, would inhibit directors from taking positive action to comply with prevailing tax rules or to not comply. He concludes that the BJR would do neither:
As I read the US cases, the answer is that the BJR would in fact protect either decision from judicial review.
Useful to have this view on the US position.
More here.
Related articles

UN tax convention hub – updates & resources

A heartfelt farewell to our dear Óscar

Public finance is feminist terrain

New Tax Justice Network reports on real estate transparency
Beneficial Ownership of Real Estate Around the World
7 July 2026
Integrating the Collection, Use and Exchange of Real Estate Ownership Information
7 July 2026

Four definitions to change the world: Struggles over meaning in the UN tax convention negotiations

Fiscal hell or mirage? What Spain’s wage debate gets wrong

Introducing the Real Estate Secrecy Index

Indicator deep dive: Golden Visas

