Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

Ashmore & Ors., [1995] BTC 406 (CA)-- summary under Rectification & Rescission Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Rectification & Rescission intended terms not clear A deed for payment of £70,000 to charity, although it was intended to comply with an income tax requirement that the payment be for a period which might exceed three years, was executed in terms that ensured that the period would not exceed three years. ...

Adecco UK Ltd & Ors v Revenue & Customs, [2018] EWCA Civ 1794-- summary under Agency Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Agency a placement service providing non-employee temps to clients was not paying the temps’ compensation on the clients’ behalf An employment bureau (Adecco) introduced temporary staff ("temps"), who were not Adecco employees, to clients looking for a temporary worker to undertake an assignment, and if the temps accepted an assignment, Adecco paid them for the work they did for the clients – and collected those amounts plus a mark-up from the clients. ...

Pope & Ors v. R & C Commrs., [2012] UKUT 206 (Tax and Chancery Chamber)-- summary under Subsection 104(13) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- 101-110- Section 104- Subsection 104(13) The son of the taxpayer, who was the beneficiary of his own life insurance policy, likely died in 1998 when he was abducted by Angolan rebels, but this was never conclusively established. ...

Halsall & Ors v Champion Consulting Ltd & Ors, [2017] EWHC 1079 (QBD)-- summary under Negligence, Fiduciary Duty and Fault Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Negligence, Fiduciary Duty and Fault knowledge that advice – that investing in a tax shelter was a “no brainer”- was negligent, accrued when HMRC started investigating The claimants, who were non-tax solicitors, claimed that they had been negligently induced by the defendant accounting firm (“Champion LLP”) and an associated corporation (“Champion Consulting”) to invest in two tax schemes referred to as the "charity shell" and "Scion" film schemes. ... The fact that some of the companies succeeded and that some of the schemes went unchallenged by the Revenue is in my view irrelevant to the question of whether the reasonably competent tax adviser would have given an unconditional assurance that the charity shell scheme would work effectively. … [T]he failure … lay in not explaining that the valuation was pivotal to the success of the scheme and how this wide range of companies could all be valued at four times the initial subscription and this failure amounted to a breach of duty. ... With respect to the Scion film schemes, Moulder J found (at paras. 318, 319 and 335): … [I]t seems to me that the defendant did not advise that the claimant could lose more than their initial contribution. … The evidence is clear that the defendants did not point out the risk of the additional liability arising out of the outstanding loan and exposure to a tax charge in the event of the loan being written off. … [I]n my view the advice of Ms Molloy [an accountant and chartered tax advisor] that the prospects of success of the film scheme were 75% was outside the range open to her and amounted to a breach of duty being advice such as no reasonably well-informed and competent member of that profession could have given. ...