Maya Forstater

And in the cases I see you could put the intermediary in the UK, but don't because you don't want to pay me lots of fees to achieve neutrality in the UK.

I have no doubt that that is the motivation for a non-negligible volume of assets but it is hardly a refutation of the basic point is it?

I'm not sure. Are you agreeing neutrality is legitimate in this kind of case? If you are, then we are agreed. If not, we are not!

I am not expressing a view on the legitimacy of "tax neutrality", I am expressing a view on the viability of a clear distinction between "tax neutrality" and tax avoidance.

what's wrong with avoidance = reduce x or y neutrality = no impact on x or y ?

Sorry to interject. Just a point of interest. Under that definition, would any kind of taking advantage of treaty benefits qualify as avoidance?

OH RASMUS. I AM TRYING TO WORK.

I'm sure you can skip a bit of furiously re-writing your co-authors' words to mean the same thing the co-author originally wrote, without too much value lost? ;)