The Defence of Passing On2025|PDF|Epub|mobi|kindle电子书版本百度云盘下载

The Defence of Passing OnPDF格式电子书版下载

注意：本站所有压缩包均有解压码： 点击下载压缩包解压工具

1 Introduction1

A. Thematic Outline2

B. Chapter Summaries2

Part Ⅰ The Foundations7

2 Introduction to the Defence of Disimpoverishment9

A. Introduction9

B. Questions in Unjust Enrichment9

C. Definition10

D. Change of Name11

1. History of ‘Passing on’12

2. Errors of Exclusion12

3. Errors of Inclusion14

（a） Source of the Errors14

（b） Problems with Errors15

（c） Example of the Errors16

E. Another Problem with Pseudonyms17

F. Triggering the Defence of Disimpoverishment19

1. Not Restricted to Cases of Unlawful Taxation19

2. Anticipatory Disimpoverishment20

G. Assumptions20

1. The ‘Windfall’ Assumption20

（a） The Defendant will Also Receive an Undeserved Windfall20

（b） The Role of Third Parties21

2. Causation21

H. Taxation Agents23

I. Burden of ProoF25

1. Onus is on the Claimant25

2. Onus is on the DefendanT25

3. Is Reversal of the Onus of Proof Apparent but Not Real？27

（a） A Presumption of DisimpoverishmenT28

（b） It is Sufficient to Raise，but not Prove，the Defence28

4. Where should the Burden Lie？29

J. Judicial Responses to DisimpoverishmenT30

1. Acceptance of the Defence at LaW31

（a） Accept at Law and on the Facts31

（b） Accept at Law but Reject on the Facts31

2. Rejection of the Defence at LaW31

3. Qualified RejectioN32

K. Conclusion34

3 Common Law Cases on the Defence of DisimpoverishmenT35

A. IntroductioN35

B. England35

1. Linz v Electric Wire Company of Palestine Ltd35

2. The Swaps Cases36

（a） The Decisions36

（b） Are the Decisions Binding？39

3. Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue CommissionerS40

4. Banque Belge Pour L’etranger v Hambrouck41

C. Australia43

1. Mason v New South WaleS43

2. Commissioner State Revenue （Victoria） v Royal Insurance Australia LtD44

3. Roxborough v Rothmans Pall Mall46

D. CanadA47

1. Acceptance at Law and on the Facts47

（a） Unlawful Demand by a Public Authority47

（b） MistakE48

2. Acceptance at Law but Rejection on the Facts49

（a） Unlawful Demand by a Public Authority49

（b） MistakE50

3. Rejection at Law50

E. United States of America52

1. Rejection at Law52

2. Qualified RejectioN57

3. Acceptance at Law59

F. Conclusion62

4 Statutory Defence of Disimpoverishment63

A. IntroductioN63

B. The Defence of Unjust EnrichmenT63

1. Relevant Statutory ProvisionS63

2. The Meaning of ‘Unjustly Enrich’64

（a） The Meaning of ‘Enrichment’65

（b） The Meaning of ‘Unjust’65

3. Correlation with the Defence of DisimpoverishmenT65

C. Operation of the Unjust Enrichment Defence66

1. Condition #1： The Claimant Must ‘Pass on’ the Cost of the Tax67

2. Condition #2： The Claimant Must Avoid Any Loss69

（a） No Change in Price70

（b） The ‘Price Taker’ Argument71

（c） Counter factual Argument #1： Prices would have Increased AnywaY75

（d） Counter factual Argument #2： Revenue would have Increased77

（e） Increase in Price Not Matched by an Increase in Revenue78

（f） Potential Substitutability of Profitable Products79

3. Condition #3： Recovery Must ‘Unjustly Enrich’ the ClaimanT80

4. Conclusion80

D. Recovery for Third Parties of Overpaid VAT81

1. Direct Recovery by Third Parties81

2. Claimant Recovering for Third Parties81

3. Conclusion84

E. Influence of European JurisprudencE85

1. Three General Propositions from the ECJ85

2. Three Specific Propositions from the ECJ86

F. Conclusion86

1. Some Specific ObservationS86

2. Implications for this Book87

Part Ⅱ ‘At The Expense Of’89

5 What Might ‘At the Expense of’ Mean？91

A. IntroductioN91

B. Two Interpretations of ‘at the Expense of’92

C. The Meaning of ‘Loss’93

1. ‘Loss’ Meaning ‘Detriment’93

（a） Pecuniary DetrimenT93

（b） Non-pecuniary Detriment95

2. ‘Loss’ Meaning ‘Deprivation’ （of a Right）101

（a） Examples in the Case Law of ‘Loss’ Meaning‘Deprivation of A Right’102

（b） Should a ‘Deprivation of a Right’ Constitute a ‘Loss’？103

3. ‘Loss’ Meaning ‘Opportunity Forgone’105

D. Loss and RestitutioN107

1. Corresponding LosS107

（a） Only ‘Some’ Loss is Necessary107

（b） A ‘Corresponding’ Loss is Required107

（c） The Preferred Interpretation of whether a LossMust be CorrespondinG108

2. Initial or Ultimate Loss？109

E. The Meaning of ‘From’109

1. Things and Services： What Exactly Comes from the Claimant？110

（a） ThingS110

（b） Services111

F. Differences between ‘From’ and ‘Loss’112

G. Conclusion112

H. AddenduM113

6 What do the Cases say ‘At the Expense of Means？115

A. IntroductioN115

1. Scope and Purpose115

2. StructurE116

3. OutcomE116

B. Situation 1： ‘Gain’ Exceeds ‘Loss’ at the Moment of Receipt116

1. England117

（a） Re BHT （UK） Ltd117

（b） Greenwood v BennetT118

（c） Hambly v TrotT119

（d） Banque Financiere De La Cite v Parc （Battersea Ltd）121

（e） BP Exploration Co （Libya） v Hunt （No 2）122

（f） Debt Discharged at Less Than Full Value125

（g） Necessitous InterventioN127

2. Australia129

（a） InterestAwardS129

3. Canada132

4. United States of America133

5. Conclusion134

C. Situation 2： ‘Gain’ Increases After Receipt135

1. England135

（a） The Decisions135

（b） Reasons for JudgmenT136

（c） The True State of Affairs in FC Jones and Foskett v Mckeown？137

（d） Implications for the ‘at the Expense of RequiremenT138

2. Australia138

3. United States of America140

D. Conclusion142

7 What should ‘at the Expense of Mean？143

A. IntroductioN143

1. The InquirY143

2. Structure and OutcomE143

B. The Problem Restated： The Status Quo Ante cannot be RestoreD144

1. Restitution when Loss and Gain Correspond144

（a） Pre-exchange EquilibriuM145

（b） Identification of the Parties145

（c） The Appropriate Response is Restitution145

2. Conclusion146

C. Four Conceptions of What ‘At the Expense of MeanS146

D. Whenever Loss and Gain Do Not Equate148

1. The Work is Done ElsewherE148

2. The Meaning of ‘Restitution’149

3. Windfalls150

4. Conservation of Judicial Resources151

（a） Are the Parties Equally Undeserving？151

（b） What If the Claimant Incurs Some Loss？152

（c） Difficulty in Proving Loss152

5. Presumption of Self-reliance153

E. ‘Gain’ Exceeds ‘Loss’at the Moment of Receipt154

1. Symmetry with Restitution for Wrongs154

（a） Restitution Versus Disgorgement for Wrongs154

（b） Restitution for Wrongs and Unjust Enrichment154

（c） The Implications of Symmetry155

（d） Wrongs and Unjust Enrichment： Different Events156

2. Corrective Justice and Kantian Rights157

（a） Corrective Justice on Aristotle’s Terms157

（b） Corrective Justice Through a Kantian Lens158

（c） No IntenT160

（d） Policy-based Restitution161

（e） When Gain and Loss Do not Equate161

3. ConclusioN163

F. ‘Gain’ Increases After ReceipT163

1. IntroductioN163

（a） The Issue and the Perspectives163

（b） Four Preliminary Matters164

2. What Has Come At the Expense of the Claimant？165

（a） The Normative Position166

（b） Unjust Enrichment at the Expense of the Defendant167

（c） Directness168

（d） The Transfer169

（e） Symmetry （of Risk） with the Defence of DisenrichmenT169

3. ConclusioN171

G. Conclusion171

Part Ⅲ Other Reasons to Reject or Accept the Defence of Disimpoverishment173

8 Other Arguments for Accepting the Defence of DisimpoverishmenT175

A. IntroductioN175

B. False Bases for Accepting the Defence175

1. Inflation Reduction175

2. Third Parties Incur Two Losses177

3. Symmetry with the Defence of DisenrichmenT179

4. Litigation Chains181

（a） Limited ApplicatioN181

（b） In Support of the Defence of DisimpoverishmenT182

（c） Unsupported Fears and Conclusions182

5. Protection of Government Finances183

（a） Reasons for Refusing Restitution184

（b） A Nuanced Response185

（c） Reasons for Awarding Restitution185

C. A Legitimate Basis for Rejecting the Defence187

1. The Claimant will Receive a Windfall187

（a） Receipt via An Unimpeachable Contract or Gift188

（b） Receipt via an Unjust Enrichment at the Expense of a Third PartY189

D. Conclusion190

9 Other Arguments for Rejecting the Defence of Disimpoverishment191

A. IntroductioN191

B. False Bases for Rejecting the Defence191

1. Symmetry with Tort Law191

2. Undertaking to Pass-back193

（a） Rejecting the DefencE193

（b） True Rejection？193

3. It is Only a Complete，Not Partial，Defence194

C. Potential Bases for Rejecting the Defence194

1. Problems of ProoF194

（a） The ProblemS195

（b） Examination of the Problems195

（c） Proof of ImpoverishmenT198

（d） ConclusioN202

2. Recovery Based on Economic Assumptions should not be PermitteD202

3. Unlawful Demands for TaX204

D. Three Reasons for Rejecting the Defence207

1. Res Inter Alios Acta Alteri Nocere Non DebeT207

2. The Claimant’s Defective Transfer208

3. The Ideal Corrective Justice Solution will not be Attained209

（a） Problems with Attaining Corrective Justice when the Defence is UphelD209

（b） What are the Alternatives？211

E. Conclusion218

Part Ⅳ Third PartieS219

10 Third PartieS221

A. IntroductioN221

B. When Can an Action be Brought Against a Claimant？221

1. Third Party v Claimant221

2. Parens PatriaE222

C. Class ActionS223

1. What is a Class Action？224

2. What are Some of the Advantages of Class Actions？224

3. Two IllustrationS225

（a） Javor v State Board of Equalization225

（b） Cauvin v Phillip Morris226

（c） ConclusioN228

D. Recovery of Overpaid Tax by a Third Party （from the Claimant）228

1. The Issue228

（a） An IllustratioN228

（b） The Purpose of this Inquiry229

2. Is Restitution within a Valid Contract Permitted？230

（a） Composite Charge230

（b） Itemized Charge231

（c） ConclusioN234

3. Is Restitution within a Valid Contract Justified？234

（a） The Item is Severable and Not Negotiated234

（b） Analysis of the Beatson and Birks Perspective235

E. Conclusion242

11 ConclusioN245

A. The Problems Restated245

B. The Conclusions ReacheD245

1. A Change of Name245

2. Three Possible Responses，Not Two246

3. The Meaning of At the Expense of’246

4. Other Arguments For and Against the Defence247

5. Implications for the Statutory Defence248

6. Third Party Claims248

C. RestatemenT249

BibliographY251

Index257