Tag: Evidence

Switzerland vs "Contractual Seller SA", January 2021, Federal Supreme Court, Case No 2C_498/2020

Switzerland vs “Contractual Seller SA”, January 2021, Federal Supreme Court, Case No 2C_498/2020

C. SA provides “services, in particular in the areas of communication, management, accounting, management and budget control, sales development monitoring and employee training for the group to which it belongs, active in particular in the field of “F”. C. SA is part of an international group of companies, G. group, whose ultimate owner is A. The G group includes H. Ltd, based in the British Virgin Islands, I. Ltd, based in Guernsey and J. Ltd, also based in Guernsey. In 2005, K. was a director of C. SA. On December 21 and December 31, 2004, an exclusive agreement for distribution of “F” was entered into between L. Ltd, on the one hand, and C. SA , H. Ltd and J. Ltd, on the other hand. Under the terms of this distribution agreement, L. Ltd. undertook to supply “F” to the three companies as of January 1, 2005 and for a period of at least ten years, in return for payment ... Read more
Switzerland vs "Contractual Seller SA", May 2020, Federal Administrative Court, Case No A-2286/2017

Switzerland vs “Contractual Seller SA”, May 2020, Federal Administrative Court, Case No A-2286/2017

C. SA provides “services, in particular in the areas of communication, management, accounting, management and budget control, sales development monitoring and employee training for the group to which it belongs, active in particular in the field of “F”. C. SA is part of an international group of companies, G. group, whose ultimate owner is A. The G group includes H. Ltd, based in the British Virgin Islands, I. Ltd, based in Guernsey and J. Ltd, also based in Guernsey. In 2005, K. was a director of C. SA. On December 21 and December 31, 2004, an exclusive agreement for distribution of “F” was entered into between L. Ltd, on the one hand, and C. SA , H. Ltd and J. Ltd, on the other hand. Under the terms of this distribution agreement, L. Ltd. undertook to supply “F” to the three companies as of January 1, 2005 and for a period of at least ten years, in return for payment ... Read more
Australia vs. Glencore, August 2019, High Court, Case No. [2019] HCA 26 S256/2018

Australia vs. Glencore, August 2019, High Court, Case No. [2019] HCA 26 S256/2018

The Australian Tax Office had obtained information from the Paradise Paper-leak and used the information in a tax assessment of Glencore. Glencore held that such leaked information was confidential (protected by legal professional privilege) and could not be used in a tax assessment. On that basis Glencore filed an appeal to the High Court. High Court Decision The Australien High Court dismissed the appeal and allowed use of the leaked information for tax assessment purposes. “In no way do these cases support the notion that common law courts elsewhere are granting injunctions with respect to privileged material on the basis only of the wrongfulness associated with its taking.  Certainly, it is necessary for an equity to arise that the person to be restrained must have an obligation of conscience, but the basis for an injunction is the need to protect the confidentiality of the privileged document. The plaintiffs’ case for the grant of relief on a basis other than confidentiality ... Read more
Czech Republic vs. JUTTY GROUP s.r.o., December 2016, Supreme Administrative Court , Case No 6 Afs 147/2016 – 28

Czech Republic vs. JUTTY GROUP s.r.o., December 2016, Supreme Administrative Court , Case No 6 Afs 147/2016 – 28

On the basis of the detailed evidence provided by the tax administration, the defendant stated that the essence of the case is to assess whether the applicant has proved that the taxable supply declared in invoice No 2010036 took place, i.e. that Dosnetex plus s.r.o. provided the invoiced supply (production of graphic designs) to the applicant. However, it found that Dosnetex plus had become uncontactable at the end of 2010 and had filed a VAT return for the previous period, but that procedures for the removal of doubts had been initiated and that the company had not paid the actual tax assessed on the basis of those procedures. The company did not file an income tax return for 2010. It was established from the Commercial Register that on 12 November 2010 there was a change in the company’s composition, when the company’s managing director, Mr J.S., was replaced by Mr R.T., who also became the sole shareholder. Mr T. is ... Read more