Search

The article examines the decision of the German Bundesfinanzhof (BFH) federal tax court where it ruled out extended reduction in trade income to a limited liability real estate-manager on rental of operating devices in purview of section 9 of the Gewerbesteuergesetz trade tax law in Germany. Topics include dispute over the duration 2005 to 2007 for which the applicant claimed reduction; accounting of the cost of the rented economic goods; and changes in trade tax assessment notices.

The article discusses a case law concerning partnership where social contract allocation of income or excess advertising costs of a private partner asset manager were recognized for tax assessment purposes in purview of several sections of Einkommensteuergesetz (EStG) income tax law of Germany. It mentions shareholding relationship recognized for tax purposes and loss declared by the private partner. It also mentions different distribution of results must be due to the social relationship.

The article discusses the ruling of the German Bundesfinanzhof (BFH) tax court on taxation of a Dutch private limited liability company in partnership with a Cypriot limited company. It mentions addition taxation is intended to outsource mobile income in low taxed foreign counteract structures in purview of several sections of Außensteuergesetz (AStG) foreign tax law of Germany. It also mentions the decision of Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on British inclusive taxation.

The article discusses a case law concerning establishment of provisions for waste disposal obligations to a limited liability company that produced electrical and electronic equipment under the Elektro- und Elektronikgerätegesetz (ElektroG) electrical and electronic equipment law in Germany. Topics include obligation on the company to collect and dispose the used equipment from the market; and failure of tax auditor to identify disposal costs in the corporate tax and trade tax assessment.

The article discusses the Germany Bundesfinanzhof court case dealing with business tax. The court held that if a GmbH accepts a natural person as an atypical silent partner in the current year, the tax exemption applicable to sole proprietorships and partnerships must be taken into account in the trade tax assessment notice to be addressed to the GmbH as the principal.

Tax transparent limited liability entities (TTLLEs), such as the GmbH & Co. KG in Germany, the trading trust in Australia, or the S Corporation and the LLC in the United States, can be found in many developed economies. While these entities are to a large extent functionally equivalent, their underlying legal mechanics are very different. The Article traces the convergent evolution of six TTLLEs in five jurisdictions, along three different paths, and describes central determinants of path dependencies. It demonstrates that the demand for TTLLEs is universal and that their availability reduces distortions caused by a traditional tax system. Furthermore, the Article argues that the often reviled distortive influence of tax law on the choice of business entity, which drove the evolution of TTLLEs, sparked innovations in the law of business organizations that would probably not have occurred otherwise, or only much later. Finally, the Article recommends making transparent taxation and entity taxation optionally available to all types of business entities and suggests carefully rationalizing the organizational law of TTLLEs while maintaining the diversity of forms that has evolved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since its existence, the limited liability company (LLC) has become a commonly selected business entity structure in the United States. One of the major advantages of this entity structure is the limited personal liability provided to the owners of the business. A common misnomer however among business owners whom structure their business as an LLC is the notion that the limited liability protection extends to shielding them from being personally liable for the taxes of the business. This misnomer leads business owners to unexpectedly face personal tax liabilities and related repercussions. This article highlights this widespread issue and provides guidance to domestic and foreign business owners on the appropriate United States federal tax guidelines applicable to LLC taxation. The article also addresses the new regime of tax audit rules under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 that impact LLC tax liability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the statistics from the Finnish tax authorities, about 12% of all active firms in Finland had unpaid taxes at the end of year 2015. In monetary terms, this translates to over 3 billion euros in unpaid taxes. This is a highly significant amount as the total amount of taxes collected during 2015 was 49 billion euros. Considering the economic significance of the unpaid taxes, relatively little research has been done on identifying tax defaulting firms. The objective of this study is to develop a genetic algorithm-based decision support tool for predicting tax payment defaults. More closely, a genetic algorithm is used for determining an optimal or near optimal subset of variables for a linear discriminant analysis (LDA) model that classifies the examined firms as either defaulting or non-defaulting. The tool also provides information about the importance of various variables in predicting a tax default. The dataset consists of Finnish limited liability firms that have defaulted on employer contribution taxes or on value added taxes and the total number of available variables is 72. The results show that variables measuring solvency, liquidity and payment period of trade payables are important variables in predicting tax defaults. The best performing model comprises three non-linearly transformed variables and has a predictive accuracy of 73.8%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on various tax cases in Minnesota. Topics discussed include Lo v. Comm'r case on individual personally liable for corporation's sales tax; Amazon.com v. Comm'r court case on the issue of federal tax dispute related to Amazon's European subsidiary in Luxembourg; and Associated Bank, N.A. and Affiliates v. Comm'r case concerning taxation of limited liability companies (LLC) on interest income.

The article focuses on the challenges of multi-state series of limited liability companies in the U.S. Topics discussed include enactment of Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act which contains regulations related to corporations; tax treatment of LLC's; and relationship between LLC's and bankruptcy.

Limited liability companies are built on the idea of contractual freedom. Unlike with other business organization forms, most owner protections apply only by default to LLCs, which are free to waive or modify them as desired. This freedom promises economic efficiency if parties are sophisticated but raises the potential for opportunism by relatively more sophisticated managers and majority owners. While companies ranging from small landscape firms to Chrysler and Fidelity organize as LLCs, remarkably little is known about whether or how LLCs use this contractual flexibility. I analyze the operating agreements of 283 privately owned LLCs organized under Delaware and New York law to determine when and how parties alter default provisions. I find widespread use of LLC statutes' flexibility to decrease default owner protections, as well as widespread adoption of owner protections that do not apply by default. There is little evidence, however, that the contractual freedom is used to craft systematically more efficient contractual owner protections. Instead, using a proxy fo r owner vulnerability, I find that LLCs with more vulnerable owners adopt significantly fewer owner safeguards, suggesting that contractual freedom may be used more often for opportunism and not for efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A start-up has several options when it comes to the legal structure of the new business. The simplest business set up is as a sole trader/authorized natural person (ANP), but another popular option is a limited liability company (LLC). Each way of forming a new business has different tax consequences, as well as other implications, such as the extent of personal liability for business debts, perception to the outside world or the entrepreneur's training requirement. In this paper we will present the main differences between trading as a sole trader or a LLC in Romania, in terms of the tax consequences, administration and other non-fiscal aspects with regards to the 2017 tax year. This article contains a synthesis of the tax obligations of ANP and LLC and a few practical examples concerning the mechanism of tax optimization regarding the legal structure of the business. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines a case law concerning the determination of trade tax reduction when distributing a double resident corporation under section 9 of the Gewerbesteuergesetz trade tax law in Germany. Topics include application of the law on both the domestic limited liability company and the distributing subsidiary in another European Union state; effort to avoid a double trade tax burden on the company; and objection of the company on trade tax cut on dividends from a foreign corporation.

Copyright of Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości is the property of Stowarzyszenie Ksiegowych w Polsce Rada Naukowa and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Tax Journal / Revue Fiscale Canadienne is the property of Canadian Tax Foundation and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses the effect of the taxation at risk rule of the Internal Revenue Code to entrepreneurs and the taxation as partnership on their formed limited liability company (LLC).

The article discusses federal income taxation of a limited liability company (LLC) with two or more members, and tax issues surrounding this LLC including contributions of gain property, contributions of loss property, and property with a fair market value (FMV) different than its tax basis.

Growing out of the offshore tax shelters of the 1950s into the domestic statutory trusts of the 1970s that isolated groups of assets individually, the Series Limited Liability Company (SLLC) was enacted by Delaware in 1996. In the 15 years following this enactment, other jurisdictions enacted their own statutes of the SLLC entity in some capacity but there is obvious reticence of broad enactment until uncertainty is quelled. Without a "federal blessing" by a federal court or federal agency on a SLLC statute, the uncertainty will not disappear. One potential application is for family operated agribusiness firms. This article concludes with its exploration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the various income tax treatment between pre-contribution gains and losses with relevance to corporation as a separate taxpaying entity in the U.S. Topics discussed include the effects of pre-contribution gains in the double tax system, federal tax law for the limited liability partnerships and limited liability companies and contribution of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

The federal tax code erects and enforces a firm border between for-profit and nonprofit organizations. Multiple provisions of the code monitor the boundaries of the tax-exempt, or nonprofit, sector to ensure that no nonprofit organization slips across the border to become a for-profit organization. Other code provisions restrict entry into the tax-exempt sector by for-profit organizations. Despite serious legal impediments, however, organizations on both sides of the boundary have increasingly found means by which to cross the border. Arrangements such as corporate social responsibility, for-profit philanthropy, and social enterprise illustrate this recent trend. Through these arrangements, for-profit organizations are beginning to embrace social goals, while nonprofit organizations have started to use methods more traditionally associated with efficient business organizations. Research in organizational sociology provides tools by which to understand these new cross-border developments. This body of research has shown that organizational sectors, or fields, evolve according to well-understood patterns, whose significance tax scholars have overlooked. Furthermore, federal tax law has failed to recognize and to make productive use of these organizational trends. This Article proposes that tax law should acknowledge the cross-sector movements of for-profit and nonprofit organizations, as well as the major advantages that these movements can produce. Tax law could then harness border-crossing activity to create social benefits. To achieve this result, federal tax law should loosen the for-profit∕nonprofit boundary. This change would enable the tax code to encourage cross-sector "collaborations" between for-profit and nonprofit organizations. This change to the tax law is one that Congress and the Internal Revenue Service could now accomplish through several basic measures. These measures would make it possible for federal tax law to realize the large potential for social good that lies at the changing for-profit∕nonprofit border. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In economies with Ramsey taxation, decreasing returns to scale, and private ownership, we show that second-best production efficiency is desirable when the grouping of private firms induced by the profit taxation power of the government is at least as fine as the grouping of firms induced by the institutional rules of profit distribution in the economy. The classic results of Dasgupta and Stiglitz (Rev Econ Stud 39:87-103, ) (of firm-specific profit taxation) and Diamond and Mirrlees (Am Econ Rev 61:8-27, ; Am Econ Rev 61:261-278, ) and Guesnerie (A contribution to the pure theory of taxation, ) (of uniform 100 % profit taxation) follow as special cases of our model. Moreover, second-best analysis shows that optimal profit taxation is a substitute for optimal intermediate input taxation. In smooth economies, proportional, lump-sum, and affine modes of profit taxation are equivalent. We rework Mirrlees (Rev Econ Stud 39:105-111, ) counterexample, which is posed in the context of a non-smooth economy, to show that second-best production efficiency continues to remain desirable under an affine structure of profit taxation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Tax Journal / Revue Fiscale Canadienne is the property of Canadian Tax Foundation and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article presents U.S. federal tax analyses of various hybrid business entities such as Low-Profit Limited Liability Companies (L3Cs), statutory benefit corporations, and Benefit Corporations (B Corporations) as of January 2013. The views of law professors Anup Malani and Eric A. Posner are mentioned, along with the book "How to Make the World a Better Place" by Jeffrey Hollender. Federal tax incentives, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, and corporate social responsibility are examined.

The article presents information on the management and taxation of the disregarded entities that includes the single member limited liability companies and the qualified subchapter S subsidiaries with respect to the state laws in the U.S. The state laws organize the limited liability companies regarding their federal income taxation. Information on the tax consequences of the mergers and the partnerships of the disregarded entities in the U.S. is also presented.

The article focuses on enforcement and governance of low-profit limited liability companies (L3C) in the U.S. Information is provided on how social entrepreneurism has developed rapidly in the U.S. since 2000 and how tax laws and legal forms have been adapted for L3Cs. It is noted that nine U.S. states adopted L3C taxation laws between 2006 and 2012.

The article discusses the reappearing and disappearing value, a tax strategy to entities owned by a corporation, limited liability companies, and family limited partnerships in the U.S.. It mentions that the use of reappearing and disappearing value offset the portion of assets' value through discounts from transfer tax. Also discussed is the Reverse Chenoweth situation wherein minority interests are valued for charitable deduction and marital purposes.

The article discusses the history, basic construct and legal framework of the low-profit limited liability company (L3C) based on the questions and answers from a brief presentation on L3C at the "Vermont Law Review" L3C Symposium on February 18, 2010. One of the authors notes that L3C comes from the basis for the 1969 law that authorized Program-Related Investments (PRIs) in which the economic world is divided into for-profit and nonprofit organizations. The other author states that an investment such as PRI is exempted from excise taxes under the jeopardy investment rules as it enables a private foundation to make an investment in a for-profit entity.

Since the very beginning of the harmonization processes, the in-born European corporate or company law has been chosen two basic initiatives: establishing new, tailored company forms completing the EU framework and adopting European Directives harmonizing some key aspects of national company law. After almost 30 years of preparatory work, in 1995, based on the former efforts of the academic circles and of the representatives of international business community investigations the prospects for an European Private Company, the Research Department of the Paris Chamber of Commerce and Industry, supported by the European Commission, published its detailed proposal on the rules governing the EPC. In 2003 in its Action Plan on Modernising Company law and Enhancing Corporate Governance, the EU Commission aimed as a short-time priority to launch a feasibility study to evaluate the advantages and the drawbacks of a possible EPC Statue, which was published in 2005. In February 2007 the European Parlia- ment adopted a resolution requesting the European Commission to draw up a statute for an uniform EPC. Based on the detailed proposals of the EP resolution and on the latest priorities of the and on the latest priorities of the European polices on future of the single market and on the company law, in June 2008 the Commission presented its Proposal for a 'Council Regulation on the Statue for a European private company' designed especially to meet the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. The Commission's Proposal, not intended to regulate matters related to labor law, tax law, accounting or insolvency law, aimed to reduce the costs on the creation and operation of businesses. The EPC, featuring uniform and simple rules on formation throughout the EU, may, and according to the Proposal wished to be a real competitor of the under the national law existing forms of business entities. Article 308 of the EC Treaty was the legal basis of the existing European company law forms and the proposed EPC as well, but contrast with this the existing forms, in the case of the EPC the cross-border element was not required. An EPC, with a minimum capital of 1 Euro, could be established not only by the way of mergers, divisions transformations and ex nihilo. Regarding the inefficient amount of the capital and the lack of the cross-border elements, the legal solutions of the proposed regulation were not only questioned by some company law experts but by the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament too, so today it's hard to foresee the future of the Proposal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the practical issues faced by the U.S. tax lawyers in translating a corporate deal to the format of limited liability company (LLC). It addresses some of the differences between the grammar of corporations and LLCs. It reports on some practical effects of the differences faced by a lawyer in his role as translator. It presents an overview of some basic concepts concerning the taxation and operation of LLCs. It is stated that the fundamental difference between the tax rules governing corporations and those governing LLCs is that corporations with taxable income are taxed at the entity level, whereas income of an LLC flows through to the equity owners and is taxed to them.

The article discusses the passage of section 409A or the stock appreciation rights (SARs) code provision. Equity appreciation rights in employer stock were made subject to the new rules making SARs an unattractive deferred compensation tool. The view that the only viable method for valuing privately-held company stock are still severely disadvantaged is revealed.

Discusses the corporation law in France. Legislation of law to revise the French Company Law in July 24, 1966; Effect of the law on foreign investors; Taxation of incorporated limited liability companies.

The article discusses changes to and interpretation of the tripartite deduction of trade tax as operating expenses in Germany. Topics include the rise in the compensation under the business tax at private companies; the application of business tax following transformation of a corporation in a partnership through sale of the business or of the co-entrepreneur shares, and trade tax liability in the capital gains.