Search - 制暴无限杀机 下载

R & S Industries Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue), 2016 FC 275-- summary under Subsection 18.1(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Other Legislation/Constitution- Federal- Federal Courts Act- Section 18.1- Subsection 18.1(2) extension not granted due to unexplained lengthy delay and lack of substantive merit On September 1, 2005, the appellant (“R & S”) transferred its assets to a limited partnership (“BELP”) which was controlled by its controlling shareholder. ... On November 12, 2010 R & S filed a Notice of Objection asserting that a reassessment of its return for the taxation year of the transfer was based on amounts mistakenly provided on the previously-filed s. 97(2) election form. ... On August 8, 2014, CRA confirmed the reassessment, to which R & S filed a Notice of Objection. ...

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. ...

Revenue and Customs v Frank A Smart & Son Ltd (Scotland), [2019] UKSC 39-- summary under Subsection 141.01(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 141.01- Subsection 141.01(2) input credits were available for fund raising costs of a taxable business The taxpayer (“FASL”) purchased entitlements to an EU farm subsidy, the Single Farm Payment (“SFP”). ... The needed link exists if the acquired goods and services are part of the cost components of that person’s taxable transactions which utilise those goods and services …. iii) Alternatively, there must be a direct and immediate link between those acquired goods and services and the whole of the taxable person’s economic activity because their cost forms part of that business’s overheads and thus a component part of the price of its products …. iv) Where the taxable person acquires professional services for an initial fund-raising transaction which is outside the scope of VAT, that use of the services does not prevent it from deducting the VAT payable on those services as input tax and retaining that deduction if its purpose in fund-raising, objectively ascertained, was to fund its economic activity and it later uses the funds raised to develop its business of providing taxable supplies. … v) Where the cost of the acquired services, including services relating to fund-raising, are a cost component of downstream activities of the taxable person which are either exempt transactions or transactions outside the scope of VAT, the VAT paid on such services is not deductible as input tax. … Where the taxable person carries on taxable transactions, exempt transactions and transactions outside the scope of VAT, the VAT paid on the services it has acquired has to be apportioned under article 173 of the PVD. vi) The right to deduct VAT as input tax arises immediately when the deductible tax becomes chargeable …. vii) The purpose of the taxable person in carrying out the fund-raising is a question of fact which the court determines by having regard to objective evidence. ...

The Tax Court found that some of the travel allowances paid to employees of the taxpayer were reasonable and, thus, properly excluded from income under s. 6(1)(b)(vii), but that other of the allowances were unreasonable in amount – and excluded the reasonable portion from income. ... If the reasonable portion of an unreasonable travel allowance paid under paragraph 6(1)(b) could be excluded from income under subparagraph 6(1)(b)(vii), as the Tax Court did, the purpose of subparagraph 8(1)(h)(iii) would be defeated. … [T]he important purpose of paragraph 6(1)(b) is to prevent employers from paying to employees salary disguised as an allowance in order to render the salary tax-free. Subparagraph 6(1)(b)(vii) is an exception from this general purpose to be construed so as not to defeat the purpose of the general provision. … ...

Although s. 18(1) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 provided: Revenue and Customs officials may not disclose information which is held by the Revenue and Customs in connection with a function of the Revenue and Customs s. 18(2)(a)(i) provided that s. 18(1) did not apply to a “disclosure … made for the purposes of a function” of HMRC. ... (para. 25) In rejecting HMRC’s arguments that the disclosure was justified, he stated (at paras. 34-35): … [A] general desire to foster good relations with the media or to publicise HMRC’s views about elaborate tax avoidance schemes cannot possibly justify a senior or any other official of HMRC discussing the affairs of individual tax payers with journalists. [T]hat the conversation might have led to the journalists telling Mr Hartnett about other tax avoidance schemes …is far too tenuous to justify giving confidential information to them. … The fact that Mr Hartnett did not anticipate his comments being reported is in itself no justification for making them. ...

In finding that the early-termination amounts so received by MEO were “for consideration” and, thus, subject to VAT, the Court stated (at paras. 39-40, 45): [A] supply of services is carried out ‘for consideration’, within the meaning of that provision, only if there is a legal relationship between the provider of the service and the recipient pursuant to which there is reciprocal performance, the remuneration received by the provider of the service constituting the actual consideration for the service supplied to the recipient …. This is the case if there is a direct link between the service supplied and the consideration received …. ... Thus, that supply is made by the supplier of services when it places the customer in a position to benefit from the supply, so that the existence of the abovementioned direct link is not affected by the fact that the customer does not avail himself of that right …. ...

Coopers & Lybrand Ltd. v. Bank of Montreal, [1993] GSTC 36 (Nfld. S.C.T.D.)-- summary under Subsection 299(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 299- Subsection 299(2) assessment not a proceeding In its 3 June 1992 order appointing Coopers & Lybrand as the receiver-manager of an insolvent company (“Lundrigans”), the Newfoundland Supreme Court order “that no action, application or other proceedings…shall be taken against the Debtor…without the prior consent of the Receiver and Manager.” ... If nothing follows the assessment, it is of no legal consequence. … In my view, the issuance of an assessment for GST is not an "action, application or other proceeding" within the contemplation of paragraph 8 of the Order. ...

Brodie & Anor, [1998] BTC 141 (Ch. D)-- summary under Subsection 102(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- 101-110- Section 102- Subsection 102(2) top tier partners are lower tier partnership members The taxpayers used borrowed money to make a contribution of capital to a partnership (Skeldon Estates) which was a member of a second partnership (Murdoch) which carried on a farming business utilizing farms owned by Skeldon Estate and the second partner of Murdoch. ... Murdoch & Son", it followed "that the money [was] thereby used wholly for the purposes of the trade carried on by the partners in W. Murdoch & Son." He went on to indicate (at p. 153) that under English law, where A and B are the partners in partnership X, and X and another person (C) form another partnership, partnership Y, A and B are considered to be partners in partnership Y in their capacity as members of partnership X. ...

Brodie & Anor, [1998] BTC 141 (Ch. D)-- summary under Section 253.1 Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 253.1 top tier partners are lower tier partnership members The taxpayers used borrowed money to make a contribution of capital to a partnership (Skeldon Estates) which was a member of a second partnership (Murdoch) which carried on a farming business utilizing farms owned by Skeldon Estate and the second partner of Murdoch. ... Murdoch & Son", it followed "that the money [was] thereby used wholly for the purposes of the trade carried on by the partners in W. Murdoch & Son." He went on to indicate (at p. 153) that under English law, where A and B are the partners in partnership X, and X and another person (C) form another partnership, partnership Y, A and B are considered to be partners in partnership Y in their capacity as members of partnership X. ...