Search - 制暴无限杀机 下载

In denying the taxpayer’s SR&ED claims, Graham J stated (at paras 7, 8, 9 and 10): Mac & Mac’s claims … do not meet the last test [in Northwest Hydraulic.] ... Mac & Mac kept a set of handwritten notes. … There is simply no way that someone, even someone very experienced in the industry, could hope to replicate or confirm Mac & Mac’s results from these notes. A spreadsheet … provided more detail than the notes. However, it was prepared after the fact for the purpose of supporting the SR&ED claim and still did not contain the level of detail I would have expected. … As noted … in Highweb & Page Group Inc. v. ...

Wiltonpark Ltd & Ors v Revenue & Customs Commissioners, [2016] EWCA Civ 1294-- summary under Paragraph (a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 123- Subsection 123(1)- Financial Service- Paragraph (a) fee charged by club for encashing vouchers was in economic reality for access to club The self-employed lap dancers at the appellants’ clubs often would accept vouchers from customers, who had run out of cash, in exchange for their services. ... In accepting the HMRC’s position that the vouchers were consideration for taxable supplies of club facilities provided by the appellants to the dancers, Richards LJ stated (at paras 42, 48 and 50): …[T]he critical point in my judgment is whether it is right to treat, as part of the services supplied in return for the commission payable on encashment of vouchers, the provision of the club's facilities to the dancers to enable them to obtain income from non-cash customers. … … [A] commission of 20% for the encashment of a voucher, even with the benefits of inclusion in the scheme, is on the face of it very high, particularly as the appellants ran, as they knew, a very low credit risk. … [T]he UT's analysis that the provision of the club's facilities forms part of the consideration for the commission on encashment of the vouchers is a legitimate interpretation of the constituent parts of the services supplied by the appellants in return for the commission. ...

The place would be treated as ‘at the disposal’ of the enterprise when the enterprise has right to use the said place and has control thereupon. … [The] Buddh International Circuit is a fixed place. From this circuit different races, including the Grand Prix is [sic] conducted, which is undoubtedly an economic/business activity. … Respecting whether the circuit was a fixed place of business of FOWC, he referenced the control rights accorded to FOWC under the Service Agreement, and stated (also at para. 67): … The … arrangement clearly demonstrates that the entire event is taken over and controlled by FOWC and its affiliates. ... All these are controlled by FOWC and its affiliates. … Omnipresence of FOWC and its stamp over the event is loud, clear and firm. … [A] commonsense and plain thinking of the entire situation would lead to the conclusion that FOWC had made their earning in India through the said track over which they had complete control during the period of [the] race. ...