Thank you.
I appreciate your observation there. There are occasions when it is difficult to tell the difference between what is entirely contemplated by tax policy and what might be characterized as taking an unintended advantage.
We have the opportunity to consult on the committee that administers the general anti-avoidance rule. We have lawyers from the Department of Justice, policy experts from the Department of Finance, and our audit and legislation people within Revenue.
For example, one of the issues we struggle with is the Univar court case, to which I referred. I read the decision a couple of times, and I didn't even get a sense from the tax court judge that he saw any of the mischief that we saw. It was a very traditional, classic double-dip structure. Sometimes we have to be careful and continuously do a validity check on ourselves so that we're focused on the right cases to pursue. We sense we are, but occasionally the observations of the court help us to refocus. It is difficult.
I think we're aware of investment that's intended to take advantage of incentives. Hopefully we can focus on those that aren't, and address them.