Literatura científica selecionada sobre o tema "Inheritance and transfer tax – Law and legislation – United States"

In general, there are grantor, trustee, and beneficiaries in a trust. And the grantor transfer grantor’s property to the trustee to grant profits to the beneficiary. However, trust can be established in accordance with a ‘contract between the grantor and the trustee’. So, the existence of a beneficiary is not essential in the establishment of the trust. In terms of the tax law, if there is a beneficiary fixed by the grantor when establishing the trust, the beneficiary will be deemed to have received profits from the grantor and bear the tax obligation. However, if there is no beneficiary, only grantor and trustee exist as trust parties. At this time, the grantor transferred and disposed of own property to the trustee, so grantor will no longer have a tax obligation with respect to the property. From the trustee’s point of view, the trust property is in trustee’s name, but trustee will argue that paying the beneficiary the profits generated through the management and operation of the trust property is the main task and only receiving remuneration. In other words, the trustee will argue that the trust property is formally in trustee name, but the trustee is not a real owner who can use, profit, or dispose of the trust property like own property, so there is no tax obligation. This paper review trust without beneficiary in Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. First, it will review the problems of the current regulations related to the judgment of the taxpayer. And this paper presents its own views through comparative legal review with foreign legal systems. First, in consideration of the relationship between the Trust Act and the Tax Act, it is necessary to prepare provisions on the duration of a trust without beneficiary to prevent unnecessary tax delays and difficulties in evaluating trust property. Second, in the trust without beneficiaries under Article 33 (2) of the current Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, taxation on grantor did not reflect the Substance over form. In addition, since double taxation problems may arise in this regard, it is not logically reasonable for the grantor to give to the grantor, which should be solved by income tax. In addition, taxation based on Substance over form taxation should be promoted by referring to foreign concepts such as trust taxation in the United States. Third, if a beneficiary occurs after the trustee’s heir pays the tax, it is necessary to more clearly define. In this case, it is considered logically to give gifts from the grantor’s heir to a new beneficiary, not the grantor, and it is necessary to refer to Japanese legislation. Fourth, there is a need for taxation on trustees in a trust withot beneficiary. In terms of grantor taxation, it can also be seen in foreign legislation that grantor taxation can be recognized even if the grantor does not enjoy economic benefits. It is necessary to discuss trustee taxation in trust for the existence of beneficiaries by more actively referring to these thinking methods or criteria. It is expected that the above discussions will contribute to discussions on the literary interpretation and taxation method of the provisions on taxation in the trust without beneficiaries under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act in the future.

[Purpose]In this study, we examined the issues surrounding income taxation in relation to short selling and the stock lending transactions associated with it. Additionally, we proposed essential supplementary institutional measures. [Methodology]To achieve this, we scrutinized relevant precedents and interpretations in Korea, and consulted discussions and legislation in the United States and Japan. [Findings]The topics addressed in this study, along with the proposed measures for income taxation purposes, can be summarized in the following two points. [Implications]Firstly, during stock lending transactions, a formal transfer of ownership occurs. A question arises as to whether capital gains should be taxed following such a formal transfer of ownership. While administrative interpretation asserts no taxation, judicial precedent stipulates that transfer tax is imposed upon the transfer of legal ownership. In cases of qualified loan transactions where economic risks and rewards are not transferred, it is economically prudent not to tax capital gains, even if formal ownership is transferred. A similar issue existed in the United States and was resolved through legislation. Secondly, there is the matter of taxing investors on gains and losses from short selling. Under Korea’s income tax law, which adopts an enumerative method, gains and losses from short selling are not subject to taxation. Moreover, it is not included in the financial investment income tax, scheduled for implementation from 2025 following a postponement. Legislative supplementation is necessary, and given that short selling differs from spot investment in stocks and shares similar characteristics with stock derivatives, it seems fitting to categorize it under the basic deduction group of 2.5 million won. In short selling, when borrowed stocks are returned and the short selling is concluded according to the open transaction doctrine, gains and losses are confirmed, and the time for taxation arrives.

International taxation, as follows from the theory, is a study of the tax burden on individuals or legal entities in accordance with the tax laws of different countries or international law. Russia, the United States and the EU are global jurisdictions with the most complete tax legislation concerning transfer pricing. In this regard, it is very useful to consider the experience of countries with different principles of taxation of international transactions, which will undoubtedly contribute to improving tax control over international transactions. As a rule, when performing cross-border transactions, the state implements additional control measures, in particular, tax control over transfer pricing. Foreign trade transactions, if the subject of such transactions are goods that are part of one or more of the following commodity groups (oil and goods produced from oil; black metals; non-ferrous metals; mineral fertilizers; precious metals and precious stones) in Russia belong to the category of controlled ones, which necessitates the use of transfer pricing methods. The audit is carried out in relation to the main taxes, namely, VAT, income tax, mineral extraction tax and personal income tax (in relation to individual entrepreneurs), as well as tax on additional income from the extraction of hydrocarbons. The article examines various tools and methods of control over international transactions carried out by both residents and non-residents. The authors consider the experience of countries with different principles of taxation of international transactions, which will contribute to improving and increasing the efficiency of tax control over international transactions, the correctness of calculation and completeness of payment of taxes when applying transfer pricing.

So-called project operators such as the State, local governments, Land and Housing Corporation, and Urban Development Corporation implement public projects based on the Land Compensation Act, the Urban Development Act, the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, etc., tourism complexes, logistics complexes, etc. are being developed or constructed. Recently, public service projects have been delayed due to the increase in expropriation decisions, objection rulings, and administrative lawsuits filed by project operators regarding the compensation for losses from public service projects. In addition, despite the increasing number of lands of unknown ownership due to the impact of low birth rate and population aging and the decrease in land use desire due to movement from non-urban areas to urban areas, there are limitations in promoting smooth public projects by temporarily applying the Act on Special Measures for Registration of Ownership Transfer. , the economic cost is increasing. To clarify that capital gains tax, business income tax, other income tax, corporate tax, value-added tax, inheritance tax, gift tax, etc. are imposed according to the concept of transfer following the expropriation of land, etc. A special taxation system under the Restriction Act will be considered. By comparatively examining legislative cases in the United States, France, Canada, Japan, etc. on the special taxation system based on public expropriation, we present Korea's tax improvement points. In the case of land, etc., when a purchase by agreement is concluded within 6 months from the date of request for the purchase by agreement or real estate is transferred for public service use within 2 years due to alternative acquisition through land expropriation, a special limit of KRW 100 million per year is limited to KRW 300 million for 5 years A deduction system should be introduced. In addition, as the promotion of public utility projects is delayed due to the land of unknown owner and a lot of administrative expenses are required, the Act on Special Measures for the Use of Unknown Owner is enacted and special taxation system for land of unknown owner as in Japanese legislation. should be institutionalized. In addition, if the inmate files an objection or an administrative litigation when the project operator expropriates land, etc. for public works, the amount of compensation for losses is increased by adding the management principle while maintaining the principle of determination of the timing of attributing income and expenses. In such cases, it shall be the date of final judgment or final judgment of the objection, and if the amount of compensation for loss has not changed or has been reduced, it shall be regarded as the date on which the project operator deposits according to the judgment of expropriation.

So-called project operators such as the State, local governments, Land and Housing Corporation, and Urban Development Corporation implement public projects based on the Land Compensation Act, the Urban Development Act, the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, etc., tourism complexes, logistics complexes, etc. are being developed or constructed. Recently, public service projects have been delayed due to the increase in expropriation decisions, objection rulings, and administrative lawsuits filed by project operators regarding the compensation for losses from public service projects. In addition, despite the increasing number of lands of unknown ownership due to the impact of low birth rate and population aging and the decrease in land use desire due to movement from non-urban areas to urban areas, there are limitations in promoting smooth public projects by temporarily applying the Act on Special Measures for Registration of Ownership Transfer. , the economic cost is increasing. To clarify that capital gains tax, business income tax, other income tax, corporate tax, value-added tax, inheritance tax, gift tax, etc. are imposed according to the concept of transfer following the expropriation of land, etc. A special taxation system under the Restriction Act will be considered. By comparatively examining legislative cases in the United States, France, Canada, Japan, etc. on the special taxation system based on public expropriation, we present Korea's tax improvement points. In the case of land, etc., when a purchase by agreement is concluded within 6 months from the date of request for the purchase by agreement or real estate is transferred for public service use within 2 years due to alternative acquisition through land expropriation, a special limit of KRW 100 million per year is limited to KRW 300 million for 5 years A deduction system should be introduced. In addition, as the promotion of public utility projects is delayed due to the land of unknown owner and a lot of administrative expenses are required, the Act on Special Measures for the Use of Unknown Owner is enacted and special taxation system for land of unknown owner as in Japanese legislation. should be institutionalized. In addition, if the inmate files an objection or an administrative litigation when the project operator expropriates land, etc. for public works, the amount of compensation for losses is increased by adding the management principle while maintaining the principle of determination of the timing of attributing income and expenses. In such cases, it shall be the date of final judgment or final judgment of the objection, and if the amount of compensation for loss has not changed or has been reduced, it shall be regarded as the date on which the project operator deposits according to the judgment of expropriation.

The petroleum industry in Australia is at the centre of a web of complex laws. In addition to the legislation under which petroleum exploration and production tenements are granted there is a multiplicity of statutes and regulations, Commonwealth and State, which have a direct bearing on the conduct of those involved in exploring for or exploiting Australia's petroleum reserves. For example, the level of participation by foreigners is governed by the Commonwealth Foreign Investment Guidelines and the Foreign Takeovers Act 1975; the Commonwealth has control over the export of petroleum under the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations and domestic markets are subject to the operation of the Crude Oil Allocation Scheme. The Commonwealth continues to have the right to regulate the transfer of funds to and from Australia under the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations. Certain States such as South Australia and New South Wales have their own foreign investment guidelines.Not only this, there are revenue laws which govern very much the way in which petroleum projects are organised, interests transferred and otherwise dealt with and finance made available, such as State stamp duty legislation, Commonwealth income tax laws, and Commonwealth legislation imposing registration fees on dealings in exploration permits and production licences. A new tax, Resource Rent Tax, is to be introduced.Then there are laws which have an indirect bearing on petroleum activities such as the Companies Code which, in addition to governing the administration and organisation of companies, controls the way funds can be raised.The statutory and regulatory framework is only part of the picture. The rights and obligations of participants in petroleum projects as between themselves are almost always set out in a joint venture or joint operating agreement, the combination between the participants being known as an unincorporated joint venture. This form of business organisation is not a partnership; it is not the creature of legislation. Indeed it has been rarely referred to in Acts of Parliament. Problems arising under the joint venture agreement will be considered against the backdrop of the general law which unfortunately has seldom been called upon to resolve disputes between participants in joint ventures. An illustration of one of these rare instances is Brian Pty Ltd v United Dominions Corporation Ltd (1983), where the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered the fiduciary relationship of joint venturers.Despite this legislative and regulatory' backdrop and the uncertainties as to the true effect of joint venture agreements, the industry up until quite recently has survived with little litigation. This is no longer the case. Recent and pending litigation shows that there is no reluctance on the part of participants to take their disputes to court, often at great expense and with unfortunate results for previously close relationships. It must now be said that money spent to achieve proper and clear agreement on organisational and legal matters at the earliest stage of a project is money just as well spent as that on drilling and other operational activities.

The main concern of this article is the bilateral trade relationship between the United States and Canada, and specifically trade involving the energy industry. The main areas of the trade relationship are examined. First, the aims of the North American Free Trade Agreement are examined to show how it differs from, expands and improves upon the Free Trade Agreement. Second, four areas of commercial law are examined: The Uniform Commercial Code; U.S. federal legislation designed to control conflicting state laws; products liability dealing with the potential liability of Canadian manufacturers to American consumers; and the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. Third, there is advice to Canadian manufacturers on ways to avoid becoming liable for American tax. Fourth, the harmonization of American and Canadian trade and financial statutes in the areas of countervailing duties, dumping, anti-trust and customs tariffs is discussed. This is followed by advice on the different taxation policies followed by the United States and Canada and the implications for bilateral trade. Provisions for the transfer of possession of products are discussed as are immigration questions raised by the entry of Canadians into the United States to sell their products. Finally, the regulation of interstate commerce in the United States is examined.