GAAR - Trinidad & Tobago - Iatj.net

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Trinidad & Tobago • In Myerson v. Board of Inland Revenue, the taxpayer company was incorporated into Trinidad as a whollyowned subsidiary of a US company and sold its products to its parents at cost price whereas the sale to nonassociated companies carried a mark‐up of 126‐146%. The Revenue substituted the market value and adjusted the chargeable profit accordingly. The Tax Appeal Board found that to incur losses did not make commercial sense from the viewpoint of the taxpayer and held that the method of trading was not genuine which could have resulted from arm’s length dealing and upheld the Revenue’s approach of disregarding the cost price method and substituting the imputed market value in accordance with Sharkey v Wernher. 3rd IATJ Assembly Munich 18‐19 October 2012 34
Jamaica and Barbados • These are the only countries in the Commonwealth Caribbean to give specific statutory recognition to Sharkey v Wernher in the context of counteracting transfer pricing (value of the transfer of goods between related entities). • In such instances, statutory control is assumed by the Revenue to override prices fixed for the transfer of goods and services between related entities under common control by substituting the realistic market value instead of allowing the prescribed price to prevail 3rd IATJ Assembly Munich 18‐19 October 2012 35
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 31 and 32: Treatment of anti‐avoidance in th
Page 33: Leading anti‐avoidance cases in t
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?