GAAR - Trinidad & Tobago - Iatj.net

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Anti‐avoidance in general • To determine whether the taxpayer has evaded his taxes, the approach adopted by Lord Hanworth, MR in Dewer v CIR (1935) probably still remains good law in the Commonwealth Caribbean. In that case, it was stated that: “No doubt there can be cases in which some specious documents have been executed for the purpose of appearing to have effected the disposal of money or property…to evade a tax which ought to be paid. But where there is no such device resorted to, it is not true to say that a man who does not pay is evading the tax. You have got to show that the tax is exigible on the facts of the case and, if it is not exigible, it is not a case of evasion at all.” 3rd IATJ Assembly Munich 18‐19 October 2012 30
Treatment of anti‐avoidance in the Caribbean • The question of anti‐avoidance has been attacked from two major perspectives: judicial intervention and statutory intervention to prevent abuse. • The former is based on applying the principles of Sharkey v Wernher. There, the transfer of stock from one activity to another (horses were transferred from a stud farm managed owned by the taxpayer to racing stables also owned by the taxpayer) was assessed at the market value and not at the cost of breeding. This signifies that traders transferring stock for their personal benefit or use are not entitled to have such transfers or transactions treated with other than on a commercial basis. 3rd IATJ Assembly Munich 18‐19 October 2012 31
Page 1 and 2: ANTHONY DJ GAFOOR TRINIDAD & TOBAGO
Page 3 and 4: Topical nature of Anti‐Avoidance
Page 5 and 6: Distinguishing Tax Evasion, Avoidan
Page 7 and 8: Royal Commission on the Taxation of
Page 9 and 10: Review of Anti‐Avoidance principl
Page 11 and 12: Review of Anti‐Avoidance principl
Page 13 and 14: Common Law jurisdictions • Have i
Page 15 and 16: International tax evasion and avoid
Page 17 and 18: Hybrid developments • These may b
Page 19 and 20: Tax Treaties • Bilateral tax trea
Page 21 and 22: • However, for many developing co
Page 23 and 24: 3rd IATJ Assembly Munich 18‐19 Oc
Page 25 and 26: Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas • T
Page 27 and 28: Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas • I
Page 29: 3rd IATJ Assembly Munich 18‐19 Oc
Page 33 and 34: Leading anti‐avoidance cases in t
Page 35 and 36: Jamaica and Barbados • These are
Page 37 and 38: GAAR in the Caribbean • Typically
Page 39 and 40: Artificial transactions • Artific
Page 43 and 44: Wide scope of the anti‐avoidance
Page 45 and 46: Wide scope of anti‐avoidance prov
Page 47 and 48: St. Lucia • It was argued by the
Page 49 and 50: Jamaica • The leading case from t
Page 51 and 52: Jamaica • The Privy Council held
Page 53 and 54: Consequences of invoking the genera
Page 55 and 56: Specific Anti‐Avoidance Provision
Page 57 and 58: (3) Where a person transfers proper
Page 61 and 62: Background • In 1980s‐1990s, a
Page 63 and 64: Arguments • The rhetorical contes
Page 65 and 66: Lessons to be learnt • The need f
Page 67 and 68: Closing thoughts • Adam Smith oft

GAAR - Trinidad & Tobago - Iatj.net

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?