While I personally have no problem at all with this proposal as being both lawful and unlikely to be overridden by the GAAR, I have to point out to those who advocate condign punishment for tax avoidance that this is actually such. I prefer to be taxed by law and not by the subjective evaluation of, for example, Margaret Hodge MP and Mr Richard Murphy.
There is much talk by these, and byothers who should know better like the authors of the PCRT and the SRA, about the “intention of Parliament” and some tax avoidance as being manifestly contrary to it. As I understand it, the law remains that this is to be determined, ultimately by the judiciary, from the words used in the statute, interpreted in the modern way purposively or contextually, with extraneous material admissible only as and when settled principle ordains.
The intention of Parliament is not what MPs or commentators (and definitely not HMRC) say it is, save insofar as those principles permit reference to Hansard e.g under Pepper v Hart or to travaux preparatoires or under other proper exceptions. See Lord Nicholls in ex parte Spath Holme Limited  2 AC 349.
The action advocated here is a classic choice of route. I estimate that 90% of all the tax advice I have ever given involved that. Sometimes one available route is a disaster, described (and excused from counteraction if deliberately avoided) by the GAAR guidance as a “bear trap”. To a lay client it is often the the most logical, commercial and straightforward way to go.
I have never had the slightest difficulty in differentiating avoidance from evasion or in ensuring my clients did so or in not accepting instructions at all from those with apparently poor fiscal hygiene (except to facilitate their grovelling repentance, full disclosure to HMRC, and submission to their just deserts).
It is intolerable for advisers, in deciding whether or not to advise clients on action like that recommended here, to be expected to discern the intention of Parliament by looking into its soul (compare Psalm 139 for a precedent) although clients must always be warned of the potential effect on their reputation of the disapproval of lawful conduct by people who matter to them, however misguided or malicious I may regard them.