毕业论文论文范文课程设计实践报告法律论文英语论文教学论文医学论文农学论文艺术论文行政论文管理论文计算机安全
您现在的位置: 毕业论文 >> 教学论文 >> 正文

跨国公司的国际税务筹划英文文献和翻译 第10页

更新时间:2014-11-13:  来源:毕业论文
Azadi bachao case. The case of Union of India Vs Azadi Bachao Andolan was decided by the Supreme of Court of India on October 7, 2003.  In this case, foreign investors, both institutional and direct, many of them from OECD countries, had been channelling本文来自辣.文,论-文·网原文请找腾讯324,9114
their investments into India via Mauritius (rather than channelling them from OECD

countries into India directly). Those investors had decided to use the Indo-Mauritius tax treaty because of its advantageous tax features (tax treaty shopping). A scheme was structured via a conduit company based in Mauritius to channel investment from, say, the Netherlands to India in such a way so that capital gains were not taxed in either country (double non-taxation). For example, the alienation of shares of companies based in India controlled from a conduit company based in Mauritius was not subject to capital gains either in India or in Mauritius under the India-Mauritius tax treaty. Moreover, that flow
was not taxed by Netherlands domestic law either.   The main issue before the Indian

Supreme Court was whether this scheme was valid under the India-Mauritius tax treaty, considering that the only justification for channelling the investment in that way was tax avoidance. The Indian Supreme Court described the term "tax treaty shopping" as "a graphic expression used  to  describe the  act  of  a  resident of  a  third  country taking advantage of a fiscal treaty between two contracting states." The Indian Supreme Court decided the case in favour of the taxpayer. It argued that the tax treaty shopping at issue in  this  case was lawful and reversed the lower court decision. The Supreme Court elaborated two independent arguments for backing its decision. The first argument is based  on  law  and  economics,  and  the  second  on  legal  considerations.  The  Indian Supreme Court elaborated its law-and-economics analysis as follows. It focused on the
cost/benefit implications of tax treaty shopping as a vehicle for attracting FDI to India.

Vodafone Hutchinson Controversy This case technically was about withholding tax but the underlying argument that arose was whether overseas M&A transactions, with

underlying Indian assets, are taxable in India? The Honorable Bombay High Court held that,
“When the dominant purpose of entering into agreements between the two foreigners is to acquire the controlling interest which one foreign company held in the Indian company, by other foreign company, the transaction would certainly be subject to municipal laws of India, including the Indian Income Tax Act as per Effects Doctrine. Therefore Any profit

上一页  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]  ... 下一页  >> 

跨国公司的国际税务筹划英文文献和翻译 第10页下载如图片无法显示或论文不完整,请联系qq752018766
设为首页 | 联系站长 | 友情链接 | 网站地图 |

copyright©751com.cn 辣文论文网 严禁转载
如果本毕业论文网损害了您的利益或者侵犯了您的权利,请及时联系,我们一定会及时改正。