A groundswell of concern to the government's General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR) proposals is gathering momentum.

Both the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) - which has just submitted its response to the government's consultation on the UK's proposed tax avoidance legislation - and the Association of Corporate Treasurers (ACT) are just two bodies to air their doubts.

John Cridland (pictured), CBI director-general, said: 'The CBI supports a GAAR which is proportionate and focused on highly abusive, artificial avoidance schemes which serve no commercial purpose. We are concerned that the latest proposal is too broad and could affect not just abusive transactions but also straightforward tax management, which is an essential business function.

'We are also concerned about the independence of the GAAR panel which currently has HMRC acting as 'judge and jury'. We want to see a panel that is made up by a majority of tax experts who are non-HMRC members.'

In June, the government published its formal consultation on a GAAR targeted at artificial and abusive tax avoidance. The consultation ended on 14 September.

ACT chief executive, Colin Tyler, echoes similar sentiments, saying that while his organisation was supportive of the principle of reducing abusive tax schemes, feels HMRC's proposals are too wide in scope.

'The GAAR will result in considerable uncertainty among ordinary non-financial companies as to what falls within it,' he said. 'At this point in the economic cycle it would be a mistake to introduce something that chills growth and investments from not only indigenous but also foreign firms.'

Members of the UK200Group of independent accountancy and lawyer firms have also stepped into the fray.

One of them, David Ingall, a consultant at York-based accountants, JWPCreers said: 'Let us get this straight; essentially the GAAR says that, whatever the tax rules, if HMRC does not like what a taxpayer has done, the rules allow them to challenge and tax a transaction according to their view. For those involved in aggressive tax schemes, this might be justifiable but (and it is a very big but), inevitably the innocent will be caught as, to be workable, the rules have to be so widely drawn.

'One suspects HMRC's view is that there is no such thing as an innocent taxpayer, and that is where HMRC's aspirations are potentially in conflict with the hope for economic growth and regeneration.'