Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

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" …. ...

Vega International Car Transport and Logistic — Trading GmbH v. Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie, ECLI:EU:C:2019:412 (European Court of Justice, 8th Chamber)-- summary under Paragraph (g) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 123- Subsection 123(1)- Financial Service- Paragraph (g) a parent’s funding of fuel costs of subsidiaries was a provision of credit rather than a purchase and on-sale of the fuel The business of the subsidiaries of Vega International included the transport of commercial vehicles from the manufacturer to customer. ... Accordingly, Vega Poland decides on, in particular, the fuel purchasing arrangements in so far as it may choose, from among the service stations of the suppliers indicated by Vega International, which service station to refuel at and may freely decide on the quality, quantity and type of fuel, as well as when to purchase and how to use it …. [T]he expression ‘the granting and the negotiation of credit’ used in [the VAT] provision... must be interpreted broadly, so that its scope cannot be limited only to loans and credit granted by banking and financial institutions …. ...

Brodie & Anor, [1998] BTC 141 (Ch. D)-- summary under Provincial Law Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Provincial Law Before rejecting a submission by the Inspector of Taxes that the position of the taxpayers, as members of a Scottish partnership, should be the same as if they were members of an English partnership, Park J. stated (at p. 154) that: "... ...

The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 8733-8734 of 2018, 2 March 202, Supreme Court of India-- summary under Article 12 Summary Under Tax Topics- Treaties- Income Tax Conventions- Article 12 consideration for software paid by Indian resellers was not royalties for Canadian (and other) Treaty purposes At issue were numerous joined appeals involving the application of withholding tax by the Commissioner of consideration paid by residents of India to non-residents under four broad categories of licensing and sale transactions described below and involving the application of 18 income tax conventions (listed at para. 40, and described at para. 41 as being relevantly “substantially similar”) including that with Canada: Category 1: Computer software purchased directly by an end-user, resident in India, from a foreign, non-resident supplier or manufacturer (for example, a non-exclusive licence to use Samsung software on the end-user’s Samsung mobile device, with a prohibition against making the software available to any other person, or copying it other than for backup purposes). ... Nariman J noted (at paras. 47, 52): In all these cases … no vestige of copyright is at all transferred, either to the distributor or to the end-user. … What is “licensed” by the foreign, non-resident supplier to the distributor and resold to the resident end-user, or directly supplied to the resident end-user, is in fact the sale of a physical object which contains an embedded computer programme, and is therefore, a sale of goods. ... This would be the case regardless of whether the copies being distributed are delivered on tangible media or are distributed electronically (without the distributor having the right to reproduce the software) …. ...