Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

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. ...

Brodie & Anor, [1998] BTC 141 (Ch. D)-- summary under Paragraph 96(1)(f) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 96- Subsection 96(1)- Paragraph 96(1)(f) 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. ...

Barker v Baxendale Walker Solicitors (a firm) & Anor, [2017] EWCA Civ 2056-- summary under Section 10 Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Interpretation Act- Section 10 “is” implied “or becomes” Before going on to find that a tax solicitor was negligent in not warning that his interpretation of s. 28(4)(d) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (including the meaning to be accorded to “is” and “at any time”) might be incorrect, Asplin LJ stated (at para. 46): Furthermore, I do not share the Judge's concerns … about the need, on Mr Barker's construction, to imply "or becomes" into paragraph (d) or to construe "is" in (d) in a way which means that it has to apply at all times throughout the life of the trust. … Paragraph (d) is intended to apply in relation to any person whether in (a), (b) or (c). ...

The Trustees of the Morrison 2002 Maintenance Trust & Ors v Revenue and Customs, [2019] EWCA Civ 93-- summary under Tax Avoidance Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Tax Avoidance Three “Scottish Trusts” exercised their put to sell shares of a listed public company to trusts (the “Irish Trusts”) with similar terms for the shares’ cost base of £4.5M; and the Irish Trusts sold the same shares eight days later to Merrill Lynch for £14.3M, who then sold the shares into the market. ... Newey LJ stated (at paras. 56-57) that he agreed with the First-tier Tribunal: that the sale to Merrill Lynch "sufficiently corresponded to the scheme as planned" and … 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" …. ...

Bureau Barrister & Solicitor Incorporated v. The Queen, 2020 TCC 119-- summary under Paragraph 305(5)(b) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 305- Subsection 305(5)- Paragraph 305(5)(b) application granted based on registrant awaiting ITA assessments The appellant (“RBBSI”), a legal professional corporation for Mr. ... As well … procedural gaffes are not so egregious as to require or demand denial of this application. Regarding the test in s. 305(5)(b)(iv), he stated (at para. 18) that “there is a semblance of logic to … [RBBSI’s] position, sufficient to constitute reasonable grounds for appealing.” ...

Bureau Barrister & Solicitor Incorporated v. The Queen, 2020 TCC 119-- summary under Paragraph 166.2(5)(b) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 166.2- Subsection 166.2(5)- Paragraph 166.2(5)(b) just and equitable for taxpayer to be granted an extension unless a clear rationale for declining In granting an extension for an incorporated lawyer to appeal HST assessments to the Tax Court, Russell J accepted the testimony of the lawyer that his strategy was to see if anticipated income tax reassessments (both of his professional corporation and him personally) might assist the corporation’s HST position in its HST appeal. ... As well … procedural gaffes are not so egregious as to require or demand denial of this application. ... Russell J stated in this regard (at para. 18) that “there is a semblance of logic to … [the corporation’s] position, sufficient to constitute reasonable grounds.” ...