
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

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

The European Court of Human Rights has upheld the weaponisation of privacy to restrict tax authorities’ access to banking data

She cleans your house but the tax system can’t see her

What we learned from three years of conversations on poverty beyond growth
Q&A on California’s proposed legislation on Worldwide Combined Reporting (WWCR)
27 May 2026

California steps up for tax fairness

