Dennis Howlett takes the view that he would like to see Tesco's tax computations discussed in court. John Kavanagh, a newish blogger who works for Shaws, the Chartered Tax Advisers, thinks that the result can only be good for Tesco.

As he puts it on his blog and here too:

If the Guardian argues successfully that their article is not defamatory, then Tesco loses their case but regains the moral high ground. If the article is defamatory if untrue, the Guardian will have to show that it got its facts right in order to win, and only Tesco can know whether they have.

He also thinks the courts will not take the view that tax avoidance is immoral. From my experience of covering court decisions on tax avoidance matters, I'm sure he's right: court decisions on avoidance are more 'amoral' than anything else, preferring to take a literal approach to tax matters than a moral one.

But who really does win here, whatever a court's verdict? I think Kavanagh underestimates what a forensic examination of the tax affairs of big corporates, and the activities of the tax profession, might do for debate about tax as a whole. I don't, by that, mean it will be a good thing for the profession. Could HMRC end up being the winner?

Richard Northedge has a similar view: that Tesco could be entering into a MacLibel situation.

This battle has the appearance of a Goliath versus David fight – and remember who won that. Tesco should look at the MacLibel case: after years of dispute, the hamburger giant won but it was the protestors that gained the sympathy and McDonalds is still regarded as a representative of big bad business.

Actually I think one point is being missed in the whole debate, particularly by those who hope this battle will feature a great discussion of tax avoidance as a moral issue. And that is that libel cases in this country rarely, if ever, involve any discussion of what the truth is in relation to a newspaper or magazine's claims.

The 'justification' defence, as it is known, is far too expensive to pursue. The smart money must be on The Guardian opting for some kind of 'Reynolds' defence, in which you argue that the story was in the public interest and that you followed all sound journalistic procedures, in putting the story to Tesco, etc, etc.

I expect we will hear an awful lot about who said what to whom and when, and precious little about the rights and wrongs of tax avoidance. Whatever happens, if it comes to court, it's going to be gripping stuff.

UPDATE: Roy Greenslade has covered this subject, and quoted this blog, in his weekly media column in The Evening Standard. It's worth a read (and I don't just say that because he's mentioned me...).