May refuse to apply or withdraw the benefit of all or any part of the provisions… where it appears the merger… has at its principal objective or one of its principal objectives tax evasion or tax avoidance” It then went on to emphasise that in line with the general principle that abuse of rights is prohibited, Article 11(1)a of the Directive states that individuals: “must not improperly or fraudulently take advantage of provisions of Community law.” , along with stating that the application of Community law cannot cover transactions carried out not in the context of commercial operations, but “solely for the purpose of wrongfully obtaining advantages provided for by Community law”. In this instance it is apparent the Court adopted a rather flexible use of concepts which it had been using in its anti-abuse case law. Although Halifax formed a appeared to accept the prohibition of abuse of EU law as a general principle, the Court did not characterise the prohibition as such. The Court did not make the pivotal distinction between two anti-abuse doctrines. The first of these entails prohibiting tax advantages when tax considerations were the only way to determine the taxpayer’s legal behaviour and there was no other credible explanation based on objectively ascertainable facts. The second involves a doctrine in which tax considerations may be the principal (or one of the principal reasons) for explaining the taxpayer’s behaviour. In failing to make this distinction, the Court is seen to interpret the rule of “principal” or “one of the principal” tax reasons as formulated in Article 11 of the Directive as the expression of the “one and only” doctrine of Cadbury Schweppes.>