Tax Avoidance Flashcards
Under ___________(1) of the ITA 2007, a tax avoidance arrangement is void as against the Commissioner for income tax purposes.
Section BG 1
Under section BG 1(1) of the ITA 2007, a _____________ is void as against the Commissioner for income tax purposes.
tax avoidance arrangement
Under section BG 1(1) of the ITA 2007, a tax avoidance arrangement is ___________ as against the Commissioner for income tax purposes.
Void
Under section BG 1(1) of the ITA 2007, a tax avoidance arrangement is void _________________ for income tax purposes.
as against the Commissioner
Under section BG 1(1) of the ITA 2007, a tax avoidance arrangement is void ____________________.
for income tax purposes
Under section __________(2) of the ITA 2007, under Part G (Avoidance and non-market transactions), the Commissioner may counteract a tax advantage that a person has obtained from or under a tax avoidance arrangement.
BG 1
Under section BG 1(2) of the ITA 2007, __________ (Avoidance and non-market transactions), the Commissioner may counteract a tax advantage that a person has obtained from or under a tax avoidance arrangement.
under Part G
Under section BG 1(2) of the ITA 2007, under Part G (______________), the Commissioner may counteract a tax advantage that a person has obtained from or under a tax avoidance arrangement.
Avoidance and non-market transactions
Under section BG 1(2) of the ITA 2007, under Part G (Avoidance and non-market transactions), _____________________ counteract a tax advantage that a person has obtained from or under a tax avoidance arrangement.
the Commissioner may
Under section BG 1(2) of the ITA 2007, under Part G (Avoidance and non-market transactions), the Commissioner may _______________ that a person has obtained from or under a tax avoidance arrangement.
counteract a tax advantage
Under section BG 1(2) of the ITA 2007, under Part G (Avoidance and non-market transactions), ________________ that a person has obtained from or under a tax avoidance arrangement
the Commissioner may counteract a tax advantage
Under section BG 1(2) of the ITA 2007, under Part G (Avoidance and non-market transactions), the Commissioner may counteract a tax advantage that ______________ from or under a tax avoidance arrangement.
that a person has obtained
Under section BG 1(2) of the ITA 2007, under Part G (Avoidance and non-market transactions), the Commissioner may counteract a tax advantage that a person has obtained _______________________.
from or under a tax avoidance arrangement.
Under section BG 1(2) of the ITA 2007, under Part G (Avoidance and non-market transactions), the Commissioner may counteract a tax advantage __________________________.
that a person has obtained from or under a tax avoidance arrangement.
What is the 3-step process for identifying tax avoidance?
Step 1 – __________________________
Step 2 – Is there a more than merely incidental purpose or effect of tax avoidance;
Step 3 – If there is a non-incidental purpose or effect of tax avoidance consider what steps ought to be made to counteract the advantage.
Identify what constitutes the arrangement;
What is the 3-step process for identifying tax avoidance?
Step 1 – Identify what constitutes the arrangement;
Step 2 – ____________________________________;
Step 3 – If there is a non-incidental purpose or effect of tax avoidance consider what steps ought to be made to counteract the advantage.
Is there a more than merely incidental purpose or effect of tax avoidance;
What is the 3-step process for identifying tax avoidance?
Step 1 – Identify what constitutes the arrangement;
Step 2 – Is there a more than merely incidental purpose or effect of tax avoidance;
Step 3 – _______________________________________________.
If there is a non-incidental purpose or effect of tax avoidance, consider what steps ought to be made to counteract the advantage
In what case was the three-step process for identifying tax avoidance explicitly endorsed?
CIR v ________________ (2001)
BNZ Investments Limited
Cases where the three step process concerning identifying tax avoidance has been explicitly applied include:-
_____________ v CIR (2009) and Ben Nevis Forestry v CIR
It was also evident in Glenharrow Investments Limited v CIR (2009)
Peterson
Peterson
Cases where the three step process for identifying tax avoidance has been explicitly applied include:-
Peterson v CIR (2009) and ___________ Forestry v CIR
It was also evident in Glenharrow Investments Limited v CIR (2009)
Ben Nevis
Cases where the three step process for identifying tax avoidance has been explicitly applied include:-
Peterson v CIR (2009) and Ben Nevis Forestry v CIR
It was also evident in ______________ Investments Limited v CIR (2009)
Glenharrow