Search - ”资源化利用" resource

Commissioner of Taxation v Resource Capital Fund IV LP Commissioner of Taxation v Resource Capital Fund IV LP, [2019] FCAFC 51-- summary under Paragraph (d) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(1)- Taxable Canadian Property- Paragraph (d) mine assets included processing operations Two Caymans investment LPs (“RCF IV” and RCF V”) whose limited partners were mostly U.S. residents, realized gains from the disposal of shares of significant shareholdings in a TSX-listed Australian corporation (Talison Lithium) which, through a grandchild corporation, held leases in Australia and carried out an operation there of mining lithium ores and processing them. ... This integration can be seen in the way in which Talison Lithium itself described the Greenbushes operations in its “Annual Information Form” …. the foregoing passage [in the AIF] draws no distinction between the activities of extraction, said to be mining by the respondents, and the activities of processing. … … The term “mine”, as a verb, is defined by s 8 of the Mining Act to mean any manner or method of “mining operations” and that term refers to a number of different means of refining a mineral. ...

Commissioner of Taxation v Resource Capital Fund IV LP Commissioner of Taxation v Resource Capital Fund IV LP, [2019] FCAFC 51-- summary under Subparagraph 115(1)(a)(ii) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 115- Subsection 115(1)- Paragraph 115(1)(a)- Subparagraph 115(1)(a)(ii) source of gain was in Australia because the sale occurred pursuant to an Australian Scheme of Arrangement Two Caymans investment LPs, whose limited partners were mostly U.S. residents, realized income-account gains from the disposal, pursuant to an Australian Scheme of Arrangement, of shares of significant shareholdings in a TSX-listed Australian corporation (Talison Lithium) which, through a grandchild corporation, held mining leases in Australia and carried out an operation there of mining lithium ores and processing them. ... In affirming this finding, the Full Court stated (at paras. 64-65): What bound the respondents to dispose of their shares and interests in Talison Lithium was not the entry into a contract of sale overseas but the convening of the scheme meeting, the approval at that meeting of the scheme of arrangement, the approval of that scheme by the Court, and the lodging of the order of the Court with the Australian Securities and Investment Commission …. ... That arrangement took place in Australia, and accordingly, because the scheme was the “proximate” origin of the profits earned, and because of the other connections with Australia summarised by the primary judge … including the location of the mine in Western Australia, those profits had a source in Australia. ...