Search - 枣庄市市中区 智博公考 地址 电话

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. … ...

" In making its “with a view to profit” determination, the Court noted that the following principles generally were common ground: [S]haring profits … [is] not an essential characteristic of a partnership [citing Young v. ... It follows that the complex mosaic of generally accepted accounting practice … will generally have little part to play. Fourth … the view to profit need not be the predominant subjective purpose, but it must be part of the partners' subjective purpose. ...

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. ...

Oroville Reman & Reload Inc. v. Canada, 2016 TCC 75-- summary under Territorial Limits Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Territorial Limits an assessment of a U.S. softwood importer who did not carry on business in Canada was an unauthorized extraterritorial exercise of enforcement jurisdiction The taxpayer was a U.S. subsidiary of a Canadian lumber producer. ... Although a few – including Oroville – were U.S. companies, the vast majority of the importers of record who paid the duties were Canadian lumber producers. ... This can only be so if the application of the SLPECA to the Appellant is justified on the ground of territoriality. … Translated to the case at bar, the question is whether there is a "real and substantial link" between Canada and the activities giving rise Canada's claim for tax. ...

Samarkand Film Partnership No. 3 & Ors v Revenue and Customs, [2017] EWCA Civ 77-- summary under Business Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(1)- Business non-trading business At issue was whether two partnerships which acquired interests in films and immediately leased their acquired interest for fixed, increasing, secured and guaranteed rental payments for a 15 year period, and were acknowledged to have a business, were carrying on a trade. ... " In affirming the finding below (initially made by the First-Tier Tribunal) that the partnerships were not carrying on a trade, Arden LJ stated (at paras 59, 61, 66): … [I]t is now clear from Eclipse … that the question whether what the taxpayer actually did constitutes a trade has to be answered by standing back and looking at the whole picture…. … The [FTT’s] overall assessment of the commercial nature of the agreements as the payment of a lump sum in return for a series of fixed payments over 15 years…was not a crude conclusion based on an impermissible transformation of the taxpayers' activities into an economic equivalent, but rather a way of expressing the ultimate inference of fact which they drew from the totality of the primary facts which they had found. ...

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 …. ...

Bishop (1902), 4 TC 464 (HL)-- summary under Payment & Receipt Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Payment & Receipt no constructive receipt The taxpayer, a UK life insurance company which was managed in London and had foreign branch businesses, was assessed for interest and dividends which it received on foreign securities held in the hands of agents abroad, and which were reinvested abroad, on the basis that it received such income in the U.K. ... …If it means something differing from or short of an actual receipt, then it seems to me that a constructive receipt is not recognised by the Statute, which in using the word "received" alone, must be taken to have used it having regard to its ordinary acceptation. … I am not myself prepared to say that what amongst business men is equivalent to a receipt of a sum of money is not a receipt within the meaning of the Statute…. ...

Canada (AG), 2014 DTC 5080 [at at 7056], 2014 MBQB 59-- summary under Rectification & Rescission Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Rectification & Rescission attempt to rescind employment contracts, on the basis that employees had not satisfied scientific research & experimental development requirements, was retroactive tax-planning CRA had found that the applicant's research into solutions for Sick Building Syndrome based on air treatment qualified for scientific research and experimental development credits. ...

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. ...