Search - 阿里拍卖 司法拍卖

Revenue and Customs Commissioners, [2014] BTC 5, [2014] EWCA Civ 31-- summary under Securities Lending Arrangement Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 260- Subsection 260(1)- Securities Lending Arrangement no realistic possibility of different securities being returned/arrangement requirement broader than contractual requirement A tax avoidance scheme under which the taxpayer was targeted to receive a double deduction for accrued interest on gilts transferred to him depended on the transfer not qualifying as a "stock lending transaction," which was defined as so much of any arrangements between two persons ("the borrower" and "the lender") as are arrangements under which – (a) the lender transfers securities to the borrower otherwise than by way of a sale; and (b) a requirement is imposed on the borrower to transfer those securities back to the lender otherwise than by way of sale". ...

Warrington L.J. also stated (p. 572) that the transaction: "... is carried out in the form of a sale, but it really is the promotion of a subsidiary company to do for their own benefit and for the benefit of the parent company that which the parent company might have done if they had so pleased through agents or otherwise on their own behalf. ...

Davis stated (at p. 697): "... the section taken as a whole, which, in my opinion, is the way in which it must be interpreted, is intended to apply to persons who fall to be taxed or otherwise dealt with under the provisions of the Canadian Income Tax Act and who report to the Canadian Government the income arising from the operation of the business or businesses whose sale is the central concern of the said section 85D. ...

" … The fact that the limited partners may have had an ownership interest in the assets did not detract from the conclusion that the General Partner was a "purchaser" within the meaning of the Tax Act and was required to pay tax on the full amount of the purchase price allocated to the tangible personal property. ...

Although the U.S. dollars delivered under the contract appreciated significantly, Sir John Vinelott found (at p. 137) that: "... the agreement between the company and the bank was a single composite agreement under which the company could not deal with the forward contract without the consent of the bank and under which the bank was to be at liberty to use the dollars purchased in discharge of the dollar loan, to the extent that that had not been repaid before 15 March 1983. ...

Repairs or Running Expense pension fund settlement was one-time expenditure for enduring benefit In finding that a lump sum paid by the taxpayer to establish a pension fund for the benefit of its employees was a non-deductible capital expenditure, Viscount Cave L.C. stated (pp. 213-214): "... ...

…[A]ll the three contracts are for three different purposes – for charter of accommodation barge, for use of barge in domestic are [sic] and for replacement decks. ...

" See summary under General Concepts – Rectification and Rescission. ...

" See summary under Treaties – Art. 9. ...

With respect to the initial character of each overriding commissions as income when receivable, Brandeis J. stated (p. 199): "... the mere fact that some portion of it might have to be refunded in some future year in the event of cancellation or reinsurance did not affect its quality as income... ...