Search - まっすぐに蹴る ネタバレ

Revenue and Customs v NCL Investments Ltd & Anor, [2022] UKSC 9-- summary under Contract Modification or Grant Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 18- Subsection 18(1)- Paragraph 18(1)(b)- Capital Expenditure v. Expense- Contract Modification or Grant employee stock option expenses were as a general matter sustained on income account The taxpayers, which were required by s. 46 of Corporation Tax Act 2009 to calculate the “profits of [their] trade … in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice, subject to any adjustment required or authorised by law,” were found by the Court to be thereby authorized to deduct the expenses (“Debits”) recognized under IFRS when they granted stock options to employees through an employee benefit trust established by their parent. In finding that this deduction was not precluded by s. 53 of the same Act, which provided that “[i]n calculating the profits of a trade, no deduction is allowed for items of a capital nature,” Lord Hamblen and Lady Rose accepted (at para. 55) the findings of the First-tier Tribunal that the taxpayers’ “employees operate in a professional services business whose success depends on the availability of skilled and motivated professionals and the grant of share options to those employees is part of their remuneration package” and that the “Debits were … recurring costs that had a connection with the Appellants’ earning of income ….” ...

" In making its “with a view to profit” determination, the Court noted that the following principles generally were common ground: [S]haring profits … [is] not an essential characteristic of a partnership [citing Young v. ... It follows that the complex mosaic of generally accepted accounting practice … will generally have little part to play. Fourth … the view to profit need not be the predominant subjective purpose, but it must be part of the partners' subjective purpose. ...

(Canada), 2015 DTC 5067 [at at 5904], 2015 ABQB 327-- summary under Rectification & Rescission Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Rectification & Rescission requested rectification order to fix bump did not match parties' specific plan at closing The Bump Mistake A predecessor in interest of the applicant ("Viking") entered a multi-step acquisition and restructuring transaction to acquire an arm's length corporation ("Krang"). ... Dario J dismissed the taxpayer's application, stating (at paras. 77, 81 and 82): [T]his is not a case of the parties "wrote it down wrong", but rather the parties got it wrong. … To the extent we are talking only about the increased bump room due to the Krang Debt, the evidence does not establish that the inability to benefit from this tax treatment would have terminated the acquisition, or that the common intent of the parties that drove them to the formation of the transaction was frustrated. … The intent to complete a transaction in the most tax efficient manner possible is not sufficiently specific. ...

BLP Group plc v Commissioners of Customs & Excise, [1995] EUECJ C-4/94 (ECJ (5th Chamber))-- summary under Supply Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 123- Subsection 123(1)- Supply mere borrowing of money is not a supply BLP was a management holding company which provided services to a group of trading companies producing goods for use in the furniture and DIY industries. ... In finding that taking out a loan did not involve a VATable transaction by the borrower at all, even if it pays interest (it was the mere recipient of a service provided by the lender) the Court stated (at para. 47): The taking up of a loan and the selling of an interest in a company are not … operations of the same type for the purposes of the VAT system — nor are they, moreover, for an undertaking's operational purposes, since the income from the sale of shares is part of the undertaking's own resources, whereas the loan is part of its borrowed resources — because that system focuses on transactions and makes a clear distinction between taxable and exempt transactions. ...

Will Kare Paving & Contracting Ltd. v. The Queen, 98 DTC 6203 (FCA)-- summary under Class 39 Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Regulations- Schedules- Schedule II- Class 39 The taxpayer purchased an asphalt plant with the expectation that it would sell up to 40% of the production of the plant to third parties and use the balance in its own asphalt paving business. ... Furthermore, the Coopers & Lybrand case (94 DTC 6541) had been properly applied in finding that the taxpayer's own use under contracts that were for working materials and not in respect of the sale of goods did not represent the purchase of "goods for sale or lease". ...

Customs & Excise Commissioners, [2001] BTC 5083 (HL)-- summary under Supply Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 123- Subsection 123(1)- Supply Fees which the Appellant received from credit cardholders were found to be consideration for a single supply of insurance services. After quoting the statement in Customs & Excise Commissioners v. Madgett, [1998] BTC 5440 that "a service must be regarded as ancillary to a principal service if it does not constitute for customers an aim in itself, but a means of better enjoying the principal service applied", Lord Slynn found (at p. 5090) that: "If one asks what is the essential feature of the scheme or its dominant purpose, perhaps why objectively people are likely to want to join it, I have no doubt it is to obtain a provision of insurance cover against loss arising from the misuse of credit cards or other documents. ...

Hancock & Anor v Revenue and Customs, [2019] UKSC 24-- summary under Redundancy/reading in words Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Redundancy/reading in words phrase read out of provision to give effect to intent The taxpayers relied on a literal interpretation of provisions to rely on proposition that it had avoided tax on a capital gain on the sale of their domestic private company for foreign-currency denominated loan notes through a partial conversion of some of the loan notes into qualifying corporate bonds (“QCBs”) and with the QCBs and the unconverted loan notes then being converted into one series of secured discounted loan notes (“SLNs”), with such notes then being sold on an exempt basis. ... However, she then stated (at paras. 21, 23-24, 26): [T]he appellants’ interpretation result would be inexplicable in terms of the policy expressed in these provisions. … Floyd and Lewison LJJ [below] did not give any meaning to the words “or include” in section 116(1)(b), but as I see it this was appropriate because … it is clear that the intention of Parliament was that each security converted into a QCB should be viewed as a separate conversion …. ... This enables the court, when interpreting a statute, to adopt (my words) a strained interpretation in place of one which would be contrary to the clear intention of Parliament. … Nothing in this judgment detracts from the principle in Luke but in my judgment, it is unnecessary to consider its application in this case because … the construction of the relevant provisions is clear without resort to it. ...

Dawson (quoted at para. 27): First, there must be a pre-ordained series of transactions; or, if one likes, one single composite transaction. …. ... It by no means follows that the Ramsay approach should be incapable of applying wherever the ultimate purchaser and price cannot be identified. … The FTT considered that the sale to Merrill Lynch "sufficiently corresponded to the scheme as planned" and commented that it "would be extraordinary if the application of the Ramsay approach could be defeated by the sale being to brokers rather than to the market by brokers on behalf of the Irish Trustees" …. The UT held that the FTT had been entitled to conclude that the involvement of Merrill Lynch made no material difference …. ...

Development Securities (No. 9) Ltd & Ors v HMRC, [2017] UKFTT 565 (TC), rev'd [2019] UKUT 169 but FTT decision confirmed at [2020] EWCA Civ 1705-- summary under Subsection 2(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 2- Subsection 2(1) a Jersey sub, whose board approved in Jersey a decision contrary to the sub’s interests, resided in the U.K. ... Morgan J first noted (at paras 406, 412): …In reality, … the [Jersey] companies’ real business was to undertake the parent’s plan for the realisation of enhanced capital losses through the acquisition of assets at an overvalue under call option arrangements. … It is inherent in the uncommercial nature of what was proposed or, in other words, that lack of any commercial benefit … that the board were undertaking to implement the necessary steps from the outset on the “say so” of the parent (subject to the legality issue). … In finding that the Jersey companies had their central management and control in the U.K. at all relevant times, so that the appeal was dismissed, she concluded (at paras 426 and 430): Unlike Wood v Holden … this was not a case where the board considered a proposal and, having taken appropriate advice, decided that it was in the best interests of the companies to enter into it. ... The Jersey board were simply administering a decision they were instructed to undertake by DS Plc, in checking the legality of the plan and then administering the other consequent actions prior to handing over completely to the UK group. … In effect, the Jersey board merely rubber stamped the decision to move control back to the UK, having fulfilled the terms of their engagement. ...

Associated Newspapers Ltd v HM Revenue & Customs, [2017] EWCA Civ 54, [2017] BVC 10-- summary under Procurative Extent Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 141.02- Subsection 141.02(1)- Procurative Extent purchases made for promotional free on-supplies were part of the VAT-creditable overheads of a taxable business The appellant (“ANL”) promoted circulation of its Sunday newspapers by first purchasing vouchers from retailers such as Marks & Spencer and from an intermediary ("Hut"), and providing such vouchers to readers, who purchased the newspaper during the promotional period, who then could redeem the vouchers with the retailer against the purchase of goods. (The purchases of vouchers from Marks & Spencer were found later in the judgment to not be subject to VAT.) ... The fact that the vouchers were provided free to buyers of the newspapers merely serves to confirm that they were cost components of the business rather than the onward supply of the vouchers. … [A] simple causative test of whether the newspapers could have been produced and sold without the benefit of the vouchers does not answer the question of whether the cost of the vouchers was economically a cost component of those supplies and that business when the vouchers were acquired in order to sell the papers. ...