US doctrine of corporate entity.
US vs Moline Properties US Supreme Court usrep319436
US vs Moline Properties Inc, June 1943, US Supreme Court, Case No 660
Category: Non-Recognition and Recharacterisation, Tax Avoidance Schemes | Tag: Disregarding corporate form, Doctrine of corporate entity, Fictitious
« Prev |
Next » Related Guidelines
- TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.146 Company S1 carries on a manufacturing business that involves holding substantial inventory and a significant investment in plant and machinery. It owns commercial property situated in an area prone to increasingly frequent flooding in recent years. Third-party insurers experience significant uncertainty over the exposure to large claims, with the result...
- TPG2022 Chapter II Annex II example 2 5. A Co, a member of T Group, is a company incorporated in Country A whose principal activity is the growing and processing of tea. A Co identifies, acquires and cultivates land with extremely good soil for growing tea. A Co has developed extensive know- how in respect of tea-growing,...
- TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.78 Implicit support from the group may affect the credit rating of the borrower or the rating of any debt which it issues. The relative status of an entity within the group may help determine what impact that potential group support has on the credit rating of a debt issuer. Entities...
- TPG2022 Chapter IX paragraph 9.108 The selection and application of a transfer pricing method to post-restructuring controlled transactions must derive from the analysis of the economically relevant characteristics of the controlled transaction as accurately delineated. It is essential to understand what the functions, assets and risks involved in the post-restructuring transactions are, and what party...
- TPG2022 Chapter IX paragraph 9.71 Not every case where a restructured entity experiences a reduction of its functions, assets and risks involves an actual loss of expected future profits. In some restructuring situations, the circumstances may be such that, rather than losing a “profit-making opportunity”, the restructured entity is actually being saved from the likelihood...
- TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.153 More difficult transfer pricing issues may arise, however, if the contract instrument is entered into by the treasury entity or another MNE group entity, with the result that the positions are not matched within the same entity, although the MNE group position is protected. Where off-setting hedging contract instruments exist...
- OECD COVID-19 TPG paragraph 55 Force majeure clauses may be invoked in order to suspend, defer, or release an enterprise from its contractual duties without liability in certain situations.33 This may result in losses for enterprises because of the loss of a customer, supplier or an ordinarily profitable contract, and could also lead to the...
- TPG2022 Chapter IX paragraph 9.121 The analysis of the business before and after the restructuring may reveal that while some functions, assets and risks were transferred, other functions may still be carried out by the “stripped” entity. Typically, as part of the restructuring the entity may have been purportedly stripped of intangibles or risk, but...
- 2018: ATO Taxpayer Alert on Mischaracterisation of activities or payments in connection with intangible assets (TA 2018/2) The ATO is currently reviewing international arrangements that mischaracterise intangible assets[1] and/or activities or conditions connected with intangible assets. The concerns include whether intangible assets have been appropriately recognised for Australian tax purposes and whether Australian royalty withholding tax obligations have been met. Arrangements that allocate all consideration to tangible goods...