Search - 阿里拍卖 司法拍卖

Convention because of the exclusion in Art. 13 for dispositions of (deemed) real property situated in Australia, given s. 3A(1) of the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 (Cth), which extended the application of the Art. 13 exclusion to dispositions of shares of companies “the value of whose assets is wholly or principally attributable, whether directly, or indirectly through one or more interposed companies or other entities, to … real property or interests”. ... It follows that on this basis of assessment of the RCF IV and RCF V partners there is to be excluded from the taxable value of the capital gain, the value attributable to the general purpose leases, the miscellaneous licence and the plants used in the processing operations rather than in the mining. … Whether the interests of the applicants in Talison Lithium also passed the principal asset test, for the purposes of s 855-25(1)(b), requires consideration of whether 50% or more of the market value of the assets of Talison Lithium were attributable to Australian real property. ...

. … After describing the DLC Arrangement in greater detail, the Court stated (at paras. 46-47): [T]hese arrangements were each a mechanism, an important mechanism, that ensured that Ltd and Plc were, are and would be operated and able to be operated as a "single unified economic entity". Contrary to the submissions of Ltd, the fact that Ltd and Plc operated in this way pursuant to a contract does not preclude a finding that they "sufficiently influenced" each other – otherwise, any company would be able to place itself outside the reach of the statute (of being "sufficiently influenced" by another company) by forming a contract to govern their relationship. ...

In reversing this finding (and before going on to direct that the assessments of the Corporation and of Demers for their 2006 years be affirmed), Bouchard JCA stated (paras. 92-94, TaxInterpretations translation): In accordance with Regina Shoppers Mall … a taxpayer does not make a misrepresentation where he or she thoughtfully, deliberately and carefully assesses the situation and files on what he or she believes bona fide to be the proper method. … Mr. ...

In the course of rejecting the taxpayers’ submission that the CAE decision should instead be applied to treat the taxable capital gain as only being includible in the taxpayers’ income in 2010, Quenneville JCQ stated (at paras. 206-207, 210): [T]hat case … dealt with the change of use of property considered to be inventory that had been transferred in the course of a refinancing, but which had continued to be used by the plaintiff for the same purposes as before the transfer. ... In both cases, the income is derived from the building …. It can be seen that this argument is attractive to the plaintiffs, allowing them to argue that the capital gain should have been taxed in 2010 and to argue that this is a statute-barred year. ...

BlackRock HoldCo 5, LLC v Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs, [2024] EWCA Civ 330-- summary under Paragraph 247(2)(b) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 247- New- Subsection 247(2)- Paragraph 247(2)(b) 3rd-party covenants imputed in a transfer-pricing comparison of a cross-border inter-affiliate loan without them The structure for the acquisition by the BlackRock group of the U.S. target (“BGI”) entailed a BlackRock LLC (“LLC4”) lending US$4 billion to a wholly-owned LLC (“LLC5”) as well as injecting substantial equity into LLC5, with LLC5 using most of those proceeds to subscribe for preferred shares of the transaction Buyco (“LLC6” – which acquired all the shares of BGI). ... In rejecting the position of HMRC (and the finding in the Upper Tribunal) that the LLC5 interest deductions should be denied under these transfer-pricing rules on the basis that the loan transaction between the two enterprises (LLC4 and LLC5) was not one which would have been made by arm’s-length enterprises (i.e., LLC4 lacked covenants of LLC5 and BGI to ensure the flow of dividends to LLC5 from LLC6 to service the loan), Falk LJ first noted that “[i]n the real transaction, LLC4 had no need of any [such] covenants … because, quite independently of its ownership of LLC5, it had control of LLC6 and its subsidiaries, including BGI US (the ‘LLC6 sub-group’)” (para. 59). ...

In reversing this finding, Robertson J.A. stated: "... there is no 'personal element' involved in the series of transactions under review. ...

" ...

In finding that £90,000 paid by the taxpayer in order to secure the release of a restrictive covenant was a permissible deduction in computing the value of the consideration received by the taxpayer for the granting of the option, Carnwath J. stated (at p. 233): "... ...

See summary under Treaties – Art. 5. ...

At 97: "... [T]he habit of a legal draftsman is to eschew synonyms. ...