Letteratura scientifica selezionata sul tema "Corporations Taxation Law and legislation Australia"

Digital currency is a ‘disrupter’ of financial services and currency markets, and as such presents new regulatory challenges. International regulatory responses to digital currency range from being largely ignored in some jurisdictions to being banned in others, with most jurisdictions charting a middle course of ‘wait and see’ while attempting to deal with pressing issues (such as taxation liability and potential money laundering and terrorism financing issues). This article explains digital currency, its benefits, its problems, its risks and the regulatory response so far. It analyses the extent to which the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC, the national securities regulator) may or may not have regulatory power and jurisdiction under existing Australian law, and the role of other relevant regulators and institutions. It concludes that digital currency may well be a ‘financial product’ under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 763A (though many suppliers/issuers of that product will be website operators located outside Australia). If it is a financial product, ASIC would also have jurisdiction over issuers and markets that trade in that product. This conclusion could easily be fortified by legislative confirmation; however, it is suggested that ASIC should in all events test its powers to determine whether any legislative change is needed. Regulation by ASIC would add to recent moves to deal with digital currency by the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) and the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). In all cases, this article argues that the time has come for Commonwealth regulation of digital currencies by ASIC as the relevant regulator. This would then trigger the obligations set out in the Corporations Act and the ASIC Act, including Australian Financial Services Licensing, Australian Market Licensing, standards of efficiency, honesty and fairness, disclosure provisions, possible market offences and corporate regulation generally. The suggested jurisdiction of ASIC would build on its existing role as well as the roles of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ATO and AUSTRAC.

The subject of this research is the transfer-pricing rules applied in various countries, their peculiarities and flaws from the standpoint of approach to taxation of transnational corporations overall; as well as practical issues of implementation of transfer-pricing rules for transnational corporations and fiscal authorities, namely the problems of avoidance of taxation by the representatives of transnational corporations and ambiguity of the applied approaches towards regulation. The author examines differences in the rules applied by various jurisdictions, as well as law enforcement problems emerging thereof. Relevance of the topic is substantiated by high significance of transfer-pricing rules for taxation of transnational corporations, as well as the need for ensuring universality in international taxation. The main conclusions lie in determination of substantial ambiguity in the transfer-pricing riles, associated with the lack of information on comparable transaction in the available information systems, as well as assessment of rules with regards to each individual situation. The mechanism employed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation, aimed ate elimination of flaws in transfer-pricing rules, such as consensual procedure, are expensive and often ineffective for transnational corporations. Therefore, elimination of dual taxation is achieved only in some situations. Differences of legislation on transfer pricing in various jurisdictions can also lead to dual taxation of transnational corporations. Moreover, the “arm’s length” principle do not allow reflecting synergetic effects that emerge in the context of activity of transnational corporation, and thus, definition of taxation base within the framework of acting transfer-pricing rules is incomplete.

Tax legislation traditionally distinguishes between returns on investment paid on equity and debt instruments. In the main, returns on debt instruments (interest payments) are deductible for the paying company, while distributions on equity instruments (dividends) are not. This difference in taxation can be exploited using hybrid instruments and often leads to a debt bias in investment patterns. South Africa, Australia and Canada have specific rules designed to prevent the circumvention of tax liability when company distributions are made in respect of hybrid instruments. In principle, Australia and Canada apply a more robust approach to prevent tax avoidance and also tend to include a wider range of transactions, as well as an unlimited time period in their regulation of the taxation of distributions on hybrid instruments. In addition to the anti-avoidance function, a strong incentive is created for taxpayers in Australia and Canada to invest in equity instruments as opposed to debt. This article suggests that South Africa should align certain principles in its specific rules regulating hybrid instruments with those in Australia and Canada to ensure optimal functionality of the South African tax legislation. The strengthening of domestic tax law will protect the South African tax base against base erosion and profit shifting through the use of hybrid instruments.

This paper examines the nature of the taxation profession in Australia and its development over the past three decades and then suggests a framework to analyse important initiatives that have taken place during this period. Using secondary sources and the organizing principles of State, Market and Community (Puxty et al., 1987), we begin with the subject of tax policies and legislation introduced by the state and its impact on the tax profession in Australia. We follow this with a discussion relating to the recognition of Australian tax practice as a profession. The paper then focusses on two key areas of professional development during the last three decades, namely: tax law and tax administration. The paper finds interesting issues relating to professionalization of taxation in Australia. With the involvement of the state, market and the society over the last three decades, there is a requirement to recognise taxation practice as a profession in Australia. The paper suggests that the establishment of the Tax Practitioners Board[1], a statutory body to regulate the taxation profession in Australia, in conjunction with approved professional associations, may have enhanced the effective maintenance of the tax profession which has contributed to social, political and economic development in Australia. [1] The Minister for Revenue and Financial Services appoint the Board, so there is some degree of control by the state.

Throughout the world, the corporate group structure has long proved troublesome to the creditors, and particularly the tort creditors, of undercapitalised subsidiary companies. In the wake of Australia's James Hardie asbestos compensation inquiry, Senior Counsel assisting the Jackson Special Commission, Mr John Sheahan QC, called for the Commission to ‘recommend reform of the Corporations Act so as to restrict the application of the limited liability principle as regards liability for damages for personal injury or death caused by a company that is part of a corporate group...’. Following this call, in May 2008 the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee released a report on long-tail liabilities, making various recommendations for reform. Separately, legislation was passed making pooling available for insolvent group companies in Australia. This paper examines the long-tail liability suggestions and the 2007 pooling amendments. It will be argued that neither of these is adequate for the proper protection of tort creditors of insolvent subsidiaries. It then considers international alternatives which might satisfy Mr Sheahan's appeal for reform.

The problem of qualification of property became urgent in 2019, when corporate property tax was levied on movable property. Tax authorities began to reclassify movable property into immovable property, using the terms and constructions of civil legislation. This article examines such legal constructs as a single real estate complex, and its impact upon taxation of corporate property. Special attention given to the following questions: 1. What objects can be incorporated into a single real estate complex? 2. Whether the range of objects united by a single technological network can be recognized as a single real estate complex, if the right to ownership is not registered as for a single immovable object in the uniform state register? Based on the analysis of the actual arbitration cases, it is concluded that the concept of a single real estate complex was completely revised by the tax authorities, and then by the courts, violating the goals pursued by the legislator, who tried to encourage corporations to renovate fixed assets, intentionally excluding movable property as the object of taxation in the context of corporate property tax. The author concludes that the interpretation of the terms of civil legislation proposed by tax authorities and established in case law led to unfeasibility of the goals set for the legislator, as well as to violation of the fundamental tax principles.

This article focuses on an Australian piece of legislation and interesting case law, as well as how the Federal Court of Australia has applied Australia’s Corporations Act 2001, to characterise a person as a de facto director – that is, as a professed director whose appointment as such was defective. In this regard, the decisions of that Court will, as envisaged in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, constitute persuasive authority. The Australian decision to be discussed in this article is significant in that the South African Companies Act 71 of 2008 does not contain substantively similar provisions to those of Australia’s Corporations Act 2001. For example, section 66(7) of the Companies Act 2008, contains the phrase “entitled to serve” as a director. This article explains the legal implications relevant to that expression, including whether it imposes a statutory condition precedent. This article also considers the validity of decisions taken by a person who is not “entitled to serve” as a director.

This article focusses on a very specific problem statement, namely how shareholder society relationships are viewed in Australia and South Africa. Friendly societies are special "legal creatures" enjoying legal personality from the date and time of their registration (not as companies). In South Africa friendly societies have been in existence for more than 160 years, with the latest legislation being promulgated in 1956. As an unregistered company, the friendly society forms part of the South African business enterprise landscape and has both members and shareholders. The legal relationships between members and shareholders and the payment of a dividend are unclear in the Friendly Society Act, 1956, and are generally regulated by the constitution or memorandum of incorporation of the friendly society. In Australia friendly societies developed approximately 200 years ago. In 1999 friendly society legislation was repealed by the Financial Sector Reform Act, 1999, in terms of which friendly societies had to convert to companies either as companies limited by guarantee or public companies as regulated by the Corporations Act, 2001. Prior to 1999, friendly societies were largely regulated by the Queensland Friendly Society Act, 1997 as unregistered companies. The Code regulated the relationships between members and shareholders and the payment of dividends. In this article we also focus on Australian friendly societies after 1999 and how they compare with South African friendly societies with regard to the member/shareholder relationships and the payment of dividends.

The concept of corporate rescue lays emphasis on corporate sustainability than liquidation. This trend in corporate legislation which featured in the United Kingdom Insolvency Act of 1986, Australian Corporations Act 2001, Indian Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act of 1985 (as replaced by Companies Act, 2013 and supplanted by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016) has been adopted in the South African Companies Act of 2008. The goal(s) of corporate rescue in some of these jurisdictions are not clearly defined. The paper examines, through a comparative analysis, the relevant statutory provisions in the United Kingdom, India, Australia and South Africa and the attendant judicial interpretations of those provisions with a view to discovering the goal(s) of corporate rescue in those jurisdictions. It is argued that while under the United Kingdom and Australian statutory provisions, the administrator could pursue alternative goals of either rescuing the company or achieving better results for the creditors; the South African and Indian statutory provisions do not provide such alternatives. The seeming ancillary purpose of crafting a fair deal for the stakeholders under the South African Companies Act’s provision is not sustainable if the company as an entity cannot be rescued.

Tim Edgar's passing in December 2016 dealt a severe blow to tax scholarship in Canada and globally, not to mention being a sad loss for this journal, to which he was a contributor for over three decades. Tim's books, journal articles, and book chapters spanned a wide spectrum of tax policy issues and have played a central role in helping policy makers, academics, and students understand some of the most conceptually and technically difficult areas of tax law. Tim's book on the taxation of financial arrangements, published by the Canadian Tax Foundation, is viewed by policy makers worldwide as the definitive authority on the subject, setting out a principled path to carving out the debt component of financial instruments and subjecting it to neutral accrual taxation. In a closely related area, his detailed analysis of the difficulties confronting policy makers who seek a neutral application of the goods and services tax (GST) to financial supplies is considered to be foundational work in the field, and his proposal to remove the tax from business-to-business supplies has been adopted directly in New Zealand and via an indirect mechanism in Singapore. Tim's work on the general anti-avoidance rule is cited time and again as a key treatment of the topic, while his proposal to extend thin capitalization rules to outbound investment has been adopted in Australia. Tim's comprehensive analysis of the Canadian pseudo-imputation system opens the door to a much-needed reconsideration of the system. The more challenging the subject matter, the deeper Tim investigated and methodically dissected the topic to arrive at reasoned recommendations for reform. Tim's work will continue to be read, cited, and applied in practice for many years.

Micro-economic reform is a primary objective of modern Australian socio-economic policy. The key outcome targetted by this reform is increased efficiency, measured by a range of factors, including cost reduction, increased savings, and a more facilitative environment for business activity. These benefits are sought by the proponents of reform as part of a push to increase national prosperity, but concerns that social equity is undermined by it are expressed by opponents of that reform. The debate between efficiency and equity is raging in current Australian tax policy, a key site for micro-economic reform. As Government Budget restructuring occurs in Australia, demographic change (eg, the ageing population) undermines the ability of public funded welfare to provide retirement benefits. Responsibility for self-funded retirement is an important contributor to increasing private savings. Investment in growth assets such as corporate stock is increasing in Australia, however concerns about volatility of asset values and yield stimulate the importance of investment risk management techniques. Financial contract innovation utilising financial derivatives is a dominant mechanism for that risk management. Synthetic equity products which are characterised by capital protection and enhanced yield are popular and efficient equity risk management vehicles, and are observed globally, particularly in the North American market. Financial contract innovation, risk management using financial derivatives, and synthetic equity products suffer from an adverse tax regulatory response in Australia, which deprives Australian investors from access to important savings vehicles. The negative Australian tax response stems from anachronistic legislation and jurisprudence, which emphasises tax outcomes based on legal form. The pinnacle of this approach is the tax law insistence on characterisation of financial contracts as either debt or equity, despite some important financial similarities between these two asset types. Since derivatives produce transactions with novel legal forms this approach is unresponsive to innovation. The negative tax result also stems from a perception that the new products are tax arbitrage vehicles, offering tax benefits properly available to investment in stocks, which is thought to be inappropriate when the new products resemble debt positions (particularly when they are capital protected and yield enhanced). The negative tax response reflects administrative concerns about taxpayer equity and revenue leakage. This approach seeks to impose tax linearity by proxy: rather than utilising systemic reform to align the tax treatment of debt and equity, the current strategy simply denies the equity tax benefits to a variety of innovative financial contracts. It deprives Australians of efficiency enhancing savings products, which because of an adverse tax result are unattractive to investors. The weakness of the current approach is illustrated by critical analysis of three key current and proposed tax laws: the ???debt dividend??? rules in sec. 46D Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (the ???Tax Act???); the 1997 Budget measures (which seek to integrate related stock and derivative positions); and the proposals in the Taxation of Financial Arrangements Issues Paper (which include a market value tax accounting treatment for ???traded equity,??? and propose a denial of the tax benefits for risk managed equity investments). The thesis develops a model for financial analysis of synthetic equity products to verify the efficiency claims made for them. The approach is described as the ???Tax ReValue??? model. The Tax ReValue approach isolates the enhanced investment returns possible for synthetic equity, and the model is tested by application to the leading Australian synthetic equity product, the converting preference share. The conclusions reached are that the converting preference share provides the key benefits of enhanced investment return and lower capital costs to its corporate issuer. This financial efficiency analysis is relied upon to support the assertion that a facilitative tax response to such products is appropriate. The facilitative response can be delivered by a reformulation of the existing tax rules, or by systemic reform. The reformulation of the existing tax rules is articulated by a Rule of Reason, which is proposed in the thesis as the basis for the allocation and retention of the equity tax benefits. To avoid concerns about taxpayer equity and revenue leakage the Rule of Reason proposes a Two Step approach to the allocation of the equity tax benefits to synthetics. The financial analysis is used to quantify non-tax benefits of synthetic equity products, and to predict whether and to what extent the security performs financially like debt or equity. This financial analysis is overlayed by a refined technical legal appraisal of whether the security contains the essential legal ???Badges of Equity.??? The resulting form and substance approach provides a fair and equitable control mechanism for perceived tax arbitrage, whilst facilitating efficient financial contract innovation. The ultimate source of non-linearity in the taxation of investment capital is the differential tax benefits provided to equity and debt. To promote tax linearity the differentiation needs to be removed, and the thesis makes recommendations for systemic reform, particularly concerning the introduction of a system of ???Franked Debt.??? The proposed system of ???Franked Debt??? would align the tax treatment of debt and equity by replacing the corporate interest deduction tax benefit with a lender credit in respect of corporate tax paid. This credit would operate mechanically like the existing shareholder imputation credit. The interface of this domestic tax credit scheme with the taxation of International investment capital, and the problems occasioned by constructive delivery of franking credits to Australian taxpayers via synthetics, are resolved by the design and costings of the new system, which has the potential to be revenue positive.

Taxpayer certainty is the most frequently cited argument against statutory General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAARs). However the vast literature criticising statutory GAARs fails to consider the extent of taxpayer uncertainty, and the potential for taxpayer uncertainty, in jurisdictions without a statutory GAAR. This thesis examines that gap in the literature. The thesis uses inductive reasoning to suggest that there is greater taxpayer certainty where a statutory GAAR exists and is appropriately administered. Specifically, it uses a case study to demonstrate that there is greater uncertainty for taxpayers where the administration, the judiciary and the legislature may use their vast powers to address perceived avoidance. The thesis then considers the form of a statutory GAAR that may best be expected to promote taxpayer certainty. Such analysis involves a comparison of Australia???s oldest statutory GAAR, Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (and its predecessor section 260), with the more recent GAARs in Australia???s indirect tax legislation (GST and state stamp duty), and the GAARs of other jurisdictions, including New Zealand, Canada and South Africa. In order to promote taxpayer certainty, a uniform statutory GAAR is ultimately proposed for all Australian taxation legislation, with safeguards to ensure the appropriate administration of the uniform GAAR.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) was unknown to Chinese people before the opening policy in 1979, but since then China's economy has been surging ahead in the past twenty eight years. As one aspect of the FDI policy, I focused on the corporate taxation field to be my research interest, and the topic of my thesis. In the thesis, the reader will learn how FDI developed in China and degree of FDI development. Also, I provide the reader with China's tax system and policy-oriented in as much detail as possible, most of which is the tax incentive policy towards the FDI in China. However, the policies and incentives raise some issues. As the result of offering FDI tax preference, Chinese government tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has been declining steadily. Problems such as tax avoidance and evasion, and local "fake" FDI entities are getting serious. The new Corporate Income Tax Law of the People's Republic of China (CIT Law) was passed by the PRC National People's Congress on March 16 2007 and will take effect on January 2008. When China entered into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, compliance with the general rules required China improve its tax system as soon as possible. The CIT law section in the thesis includes the policy-changing behind the legislation and expected influence on the FDI in China in the future. As a result of the changes to be brought about by the CIT Law, foreign and domestic business in China must adapt to the new tax regime, and I offer some recommendations in that regard.
Law, Peter A. Allard School of
Graduate

This research examined the concept of base erosion and profit shifting in the context of tax schemes employed by multinational corporations. The objective of this thesis was to identify weaknesses within South Africa’s income tax legislation, based on these schemes, and further to propose recommendations to counter the occurrence of base erosion and profit shifting by multinational companies. The research also comprised of a limited review of current global and South African initiatives to address the problem of base erosion and profit shifting. It was concluded that there are a number of weaknesses in the definitions and provisions of the South African income tax legislation that need to be addressed in order to reduce base erosion and profit shifting. Brief recommendations were proposed in relation to each of the weaknesses, in order to address them.

The purpose of this study was an empirical investigation of the factors considered by the United States Tax Court in determining whether the principal purpose for an acquisition was tax avoidance (or alternatively, given the totality of the surrounding circumstances, whether there was an overriding business purpose for the acquisition).

The research examined whether the services provided by the “sharing economy” platforms are adequately dealt with by the current South African tax systems. In addressing this main goal, the research analysed how the South African tax systems deal with the income and expenses of Uber, Airbnb and their respective service providers. The research also investigated how South Africa could classify “sharing economy” workers and how this would affect the deductibility of the worker’s expenses. A brief analysis was made of the taxation of the “sharing economy” businesses in Australia and the United States of America. These countries have implemented measures to effectively deal with regulating the “sharing economy” businesses. An interpretative research approach was used to provide clarity on the matter. Documentary data used for the research consists of tax legislation, case law, textbooks, commentaries, journal articles and theses. The research concluded that the current taxation systems have loopholes that are allowing participants in the “sharing economy” to avoid paying tax in South Africa. The thesis recommends that the legislature could adopt certain measures applied in Australia and the United States of America to more effectively regulate “sharing economy” in South African and remedy the leakages the current tax systems suffer, causing SARS to lose potential revenue.

The trust figure in South Africa has undergone an interesting process of evolution during the last century – from a mere gratuity or private tax evasion tool to a proper family protection, business entity, investment, and structured finance vehicle. Its flexibility and multi-functionality positioned the trust as an ideal legal institution for many innovative ideas in the search for holistic business structures, economic empowerment transactions, general estate planning and risk protection initiatives, and ultimately, its application as financial instrument and structured finance entity. The development of both traditional and synthetic securitisation schemes in South Africa has been investigated, with some emphasis on the application of the special purpose institution, which may be in trust form. It is submitted that the application of the trust figure has developed without any significant contribution from the local legislator. A sound legal and regulatory framework is crucial for the creation of a strong future environment for legal and financial vehicles. The question is, however, whether the current South African legal framework for the application of the business trust, and also as a vehicle for financial instruments, is adequately sound and robust in light of the standards set in the international business and financial environment. It is submitted that the hybrid nature of the South African legal landscape is conducive for the development of sound legal systems in an ever-changing legal and economic reality. It is further submitted that in the development of proper legal frameworks, South Africa should position itself particularly in its context as a Southern African developing democracy. The South African trust development is compared with that of some foreign jurisdictions as well as with international conventions and treaties of relevance. Some recommendations for necessary changes are made and it is submitted that such future development of the trust figure should not take place haphazardly, but within the context of a structured regulatory model.

The Corporations Act of 2001 regulated the probable insolvency proceedings of all companies incorporated in Australia and companies incorporated or possessing separate legal. For personal insolvency, a specific legislation called Bankruptcy Act is there, but the basic framework of corporate insolvency law has been there since the inception of Corporations Act 2001 enactment, which includes all the aspects of company formation, management, governance, and dissolution. The authors have highlighted recent reforms; however, the main concentration of this chapter is on the legal infrastructure of corporate insolvency law at present as the reforms are not yet in force. The chapter also puts forth the problems faced by corporate debtor and creditors in the proceedings of insolvency resolution and has also expressed the scenario of cross-border insolvency in Australia in light of UNICTRAL Model law of cross-border insolvency which has been adopted by the Australian government in 2008.