DOCSLIB.ORG

Canadian Tax Journal Revue Fiscale Canadienne

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

2020 ■ VOLUME 68, No 4 CANADIAN TAX JOURNAL REVUE FISCALE CANADIENNE PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES Interest Relief on Income Tax Debts: Canada Versus the United States Michael H. Lubetsky Tax Literacy: A Canadian Perspective Anthony Pham, Antoine Genest-Grégoire, Luc Godbout, and Jean-Herman Guay POLICY FORUM Crisis, Cleanup, and the Prospect of Long-Term Fiscal Change Shirley Tillotson Editors’ Introduction—The GST/HST Responsibilities of Non-Resident E-Commerce Firms Alan Macnaughton and Daniel Sandler The GST/HST Obligations of Non-Resident E-Commerce Firms— Jurisprudence and Policy Nicholas Shatalow Carrying On About Carrying On Business: A Response to “The GST/HST Obligations of Non-Resident E-Commerce Firms” Zvi Halpern-Shavim Much Ado About Doing Not Much: Some Reflections on the Jurisdiction To Tax Business Transactions Malcolm Gammie FEATURES Finances of the Nation: Provincial Debt Sustainability in Canada: Demographics, Federal Transfers, and COVID-19 Trevor Tombe Current Cases: (FCA) Iberville Developments Limited v. Canada; (FCA) Landbouwbedrijf Backx BV v. Canada; (BCCA) Collins Family Trust v. Canada (Attorney General) Kirsten Kjellander, Ryan L. Morris, John Sorensen, Ehsan Wahidie, and Anita Yuk Selected US Tax Developments: New Proposed Regulations Under the Section 1061 Carried Interest Rules Peter A. Glicklich and Gregg M. Benson Current Tax Reading Robin Boadway and Kim Brooks ■ CANADIAN TAX JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD/ COMITÉ DE RÉDACTION DE LA REVUE FISCALE CANADIENNE ■ Editors/Rédacteurs en chef Alan Macnaughton Daniel Sandler University of Waterloo EY Law llp Kevin Milligan (on leave) Frances Woolley University of British Columbia Carleton University ■ Practitioners and Academics/Fiscalistes et Universitaires Richard M. Bird University of Toronto Allison Christians McGill University David G. Duff University of British Columbia Luc Godbout Université de Sherbrooke Kenneth J. Klassen University of Waterloo Wojciech Kopczuk Columbia University Rick Krever The University of Western Australia Angelo Nikolakakis EY Law LLP, Montreal Shawn D. Porter Deloitte, Toronto Diane Ring Boston College Lindsay Tedds University of Calgary www.ctf.ca/www.fcf-ctf.ca Call for Book Proposals The Canadian Tax Foundation, an independent, not-for-profit research and educational organization, is seeking proposals for books in the areas of taxation and public finance. Since its inception in 1945, the Foundation has published many books and articles on a wide range of subjects within its areas of interest. The Foundation seeks proposals for research projects that will ■ result in a book on a single topic of interest in the area of taxation or public finance; ■ be undertaken by an experienced researcher who has expertise in an area of taxa - tion or public finance; and ■ be carried out within a time frame that is reasonable, given the nature of the project. Projects selected by the Foundation may qualify for its full or partial financial support of the research and for its underwriting of the publication costs. The Foundation retains the absolute right at its sole discretion to choose whether to support a given proposal or to publish a project. Interested parties should send a brief written outline of a proposal, for initial consider - ation by the Foundation, to: Heather Evans Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer Canadian Tax Foundation/Fondation canadienne de fiscalité 145 Wellington Street West, Suite 1400 Toronto, Ontario M5J 1H8 [email protected] For further information, please contact the director, as indicated above, or the co-chairs of the Canadian Tax Foundation Research Committee: Hugh Woolley c/o Canadian Tax Foundation/Fondation canadienne de fiscalité Kim Brooks c/o Canadian Tax Foundation/Fondation canadienne de fiscalité ■ i ■ Appel de propositions de livres La Fondation canadienne de fiscalité (FCF ) / Canadian Tax Foundation, un organisme sans but lucratif indépendant de recherche et à caractère éducatif, souhaite recevoir des propo - sitions de livres dans les domaines de la fiscalité et des finances publiques. Depuis sa fondation en 1945, la FCF a publié de nombreux livres et articles sur divers sujets dans ses champs d’intérêt. La FCF souhaite obtenir des propositions de projets de recherche qui : ■ mèneront à la rédaction d’un livresur un sujet unique d’intérêt en fiscalité ou en finances publiques; ■ seront dirigés par un chercheur chevronné ayant une expertise dans un domaine de la fiscalité ou des finances publiques; ■ seront effectués dans un délai raisonnable, compte tenu de la nature du projet. Les projets qui seront sélectionnés par la FCF pourront être partiellement ou totalement admissibles à une aide financière pour la recherche et les frais de publication. La FCF se réserve le droit absolu, et à sa seule discrétion, d’appuyer une proposition particulière ou de publier un projet. Toute personne intéressée doit faire parvenir un bref sommaire de la proposition pour examen initial par la FCF à : Heather Evans Directrice exécutive et chef de la direction Canadian Tax Foundation/Fondation canadienne de fiscalité 145 Wellington Street West, Suite 1400 Toronto, Ontario M5J 1H8 [email protected] Pour plus d’information, veuillez communiquer avec le directeur, tel qu’il est mentionné plus haut, ou avec les co-présidentes du comité de recherche de la Fondation canadienne de fiscalité : Hugh Woolley a/s Canadian Tax Foundation/Fondation canadienne de fiscalité Kim Brooks a/s Canadian Tax Foundation/Fondation canadienne de fiscalité ■ ii ■ ■ Recent and Upcoming Events * ■ Activités récentes et à venir * YOUNG PRACTITIONER WEBINAR SERIES Various Topics: January 13 and 28, February 17 and 24, 2021 TRANSFER PRICING CONFERENCE AND LIVE WEBCAST February 3-4, 2021 ESTATES & TRUST SEMINAR AND LIVE WEBCAST April 14-15, 2021 JOURNÉE D’ÉTUDES FISCALES ET WEBÉMISSION le 6-7 juillet 2021 THE BELOW DATES ARE TENTATIVE: PRAIRIE PROVINCES TAX CONFERENCE AND LIVE WEBCAST May 31-June 1, 2021, Winnipeg BRITISH COLUMBIA TAX CONFERENCE AND LIVE WEBCAST September 20-21, 2021, Vancouver ONTARIO TAX CONFERENCE AND LIVE WEBCAST October 25-26, 2021, Toronto ATLANTIC PROVINCES TAX CONFERENCE November 5-6, 2021, Halifax 73RD ANNUAL TAX CONFERENCE November 28-30, 2021, Toronto * For further details on upcoming events, please visit the Canadian Tax Foundation website at www.ctf.ca. / Pour plus de renseignements, veuillez consulter le site Web de la Fondation à www.fcf-ctf.ca. ■ iii ■ © 2020, Canadian Tax Foundation/Fondation canadienne de fiscalité Disclaimer. The material contained in this publication is not intended to be advice on any particular matter. No subscriber or other reader should act on the basis of any matter contained in this publication without considering appropriate professional advice. The publisher, and the authors and editors, expressly disclaim all and any liability to any person, whether a purchaser of this publication or not, in respect of anything and of the consequences of anything done or omitted to be done by any such person in reliance upon the contents of this publication. Opinions expressed by individual writers are not necessarily endorsed by the Canadian Tax Foundation and its members. Photocopying and reprinting. Permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this publication for distribu - tion must be applied for in writing; e-mail: [email protected]. Advertising. Inquiries relating to advertisements should be directed to Christine Escalante, e-mail: [email protected]. Exonération de responsabilité. Le contenu de cette publication ne doit être interprété d’aucune façon comme un avis ou une opinion. L’abonné ou le lecteur ne devrait pas fonder ses décisions sur le contenu de cette publication sans envisager une consultation professionnelle appropriée. L’éditeur et les auteurs réfutent toute responsabilité envers toute personne, qu’elle soit abonnée ou non, rela - tivement à toute conséquence résultant d’actes ou omissions faits en fonction du contenu de la présente publication. Les opinions exprimées par les auteurs particuliers ne sont pas nécessairement appuyées par la Fondation canadienne de fiscalité et ses membres. Photocopie et réimpression. L’autorisation de photocopier ou de réimprimer toute portion de cette publication à des fins de distribution devra être obtenue en adressant une demande écrite à permissions @ctf.ca. Annonces publicitaires. Toutes demandes concernant les annonces publicitaires devront être adres - sées à Christine Escalante, courriel : [email protected]. Canadian Tax Journal Revue fiscale canadienne Published four times per year Publiée quatre fois l’an Price: $75 per copy (plus applicable taxes) Prix : 75 $ l’exemplaire (taxes en sus) Subscription rate: $343.75 per year (plus Abonnement : 343,75 $ par an (taxes en sus) applicable taxes) (Numéro d’enregistrement de TVH : (HST registration no. R-106867260) R-106867260) Canadian Tax Foundation La Fondation canadienne de fiscalité 145 Wellington Street West 1250, boul. René-Lévesque ouest Suite 1400 Bureau 2935 Toronto, Canada M5J 1H8 Montréal (Québec) H3B 4W8 Telephone: 416-599-0283 Téléphone : 514-939-6323 Toll Free: 1-877-733-0283 Télécopieur : 514-939-7353 Facsimile: 416-599-9283 Internet : www.fcf-ctf.ca Internet: www.ctf.ca 2020, vol. 68, no. 4 2020, vol. 68, n o 4 (Issued January 2021) (publication : janvier 2021) ISSN 0008-5111 ISSN 0008-5111 Printed in Canada Imprimée au Canada 5,600 01-21 5,600 01-21 ■ iv ■ ■ 2020 VOLUME 68, No 4 Canadian Tax Journal Revue fiscale canadienne PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES 931 Interest Relief on Income
Recommended publications
  • Pressures for the Harmonization of Income Taxation Between Canada and the United States

    Pressures for the Harmonization of Income Taxation Between Canada and the United States

    This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: Canada-U.S. Tax Comparisons Volume Author/Editor: John B. Shoven and John Whalley, editors Volume Publisher: University of Chicago Press Volume ISBN: 0-226-75483-9 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/shov92-1 Conference Date: July 26-27, 1990 Publication Date: January 1992 Chapter Title: Pressures for the Harmonization of Income Taxation between Canada and the United States Chapter Author: Robin Boadway, Neil Bruce Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c7478 Chapter pages in book: (p. 25 - 74) 1 Pressures for the Harmonization of Income Taxation between Canada and the United States Robin Boadway and Neil Bruce 1.1 Introduction: The Question of Tax Harmonization The determination of tax policy is among the most sovereign functions of governments. The choices to be made include of the level of tax revenues to be collected (and hence the level of public sector spending), the economic activities to be taxed (the tax bases and the tax mix), the distribution of the tax burden over different groups and income classes in the country, and the distri- bution of the tax revenues to different levels of government in the country. From an economic point of view, there are a number of criteria that might be used in formulating tax policy. These include minimizing the burden on the population of raising the given amount of revenue, minimizing the administra- tive costs of the tax system both to the government and to the taxpayers, achieving the desired amount of income redistribution, increasing the stability and predictability of the revenue base, and using tax policy as an instrument of industrial and regional policy.
  • Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the First Circuit)

    Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the First Circuit)

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE 2019 REVISIONS TO PATTERN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT DISTRICT OF MAINE INTERNET SITE EDITION Updated 6/24/19 by Chief District Judge Nancy Torresen PATTERN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Preface to 1998 Edition Citations to Other Pattern Instructions How to Use the Pattern Instructions Part 1—Preliminary Instructions 1.01 Duties of the Jury 1.02 Nature of Indictment; Presumption of Innocence 1.03 Previous Trial 1.04 Preliminary Statement of Elements of Crime 1.05 Evidence; Objections; Rulings; Bench Conferences 1.06 Credibility of Witnesses 1.07 Conduct of the Jury 1.08 Notetaking 1.09 Outline of the Trial Part 2—Instructions Concerning Certain Matters of Evidence 2.01 Stipulations 2.02 Judicial Notice 2.03 Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statement 2.04 Impeachment of Witness Testimony by Prior Conviction 2.05 Impeachment of Defendant's Testimony by Prior Conviction 2.06 Evidence of Defendant's Prior Similar Acts 2.07 Weighing the Testimony of an Expert Witness 2.08 Caution as to Cooperating Witness/Accomplice/Paid Informant 2.09 Use of Tapes and Transcripts 2.10 Flight After Accusation/Consciousness of Guilt 2.11 Statements by Defendant 2.12 Missing Witness 2.13 Spoliation 2.14 Witness (Not the Defendant) Who Takes the Fifth Amendment 2.15 Definition of “Knowingly” 2.16 “Willful Blindness” As a Way of Satisfying “Knowingly” 2.17 Definition of “Willfully” 2.18 Taking a View 2.19 Character Evidence 2.20 Testimony by Defendant
  • Information for Persons Representing Themselves Before the U.S. Tax Court

    Information for Persons Representing Themselves Before the U.S. Tax Court

    Information for Persons Representing Themselves Before the U.S. Tax Court United States Tax Court Washington, D.C. August 2010 INTRODUCTION This guide provides information, but not legal advice, for individuals who represent themselves before the Tax Court. It answers some of taxpayers' most frequent questions. It is a step-by-step explanation of the process of: Filing a petition to begin your Tax Court case Things that occur before trial Things that occur during trial Things that occur after trial Definition of terms (Glossary) For more detailed information, consult the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, available on the Court's Web site (www.ustaxcourt.gov). A copy of the Tax Court Rules (Rules) may be obtained for $20.00 by writing to the United States Tax Court, 400 Second Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20217, and enclosing a check or money order for that amount payable to the "Clerk, United States Tax Court." Please do not send cash. ADDRESS ALL MAIL TO: United States Tax Court 400 Second Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20217 CONTENTS ABOUT THE TAX COURT 1 What is the United States Tax Court? 1 What are the Tax Court's Hours of Operation? 1 STARTING A CASE 2 How do I start a case in the Tax Court? 2 Who can file a petition with the Tax Court? 2 Is there anyone who can help me file a petition and/or help me in my case against the IRS? 2 How can I find a tax clinic? 3 If I want to represent myself or if I don't qualify for representation by a tax clinic, can I represent myself? 3 What should I do if I don't speak and/or understand English very well? 3 Are there any circumstances where the Court will help pay for the cost of an interpreter at trial? 3 If I need an interpreter at trial what should I do? 4 I thought I came to an agreement with the IRS, but the IRS sent me notice of deficiency or a notice of determination stating that I have a right to file a petition with the Tax Court.
  • Mazzei; Angelo L

    Mazzei; Angelo L

    No. 18-72451 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT _______________________________ CELIA MAZZEI; ANGELO L. MAZZEI; MARY E. MAZZEI, Petitioners-Appellants v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee _______________________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT _______________________________ BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE _______________________________ RICHARD E. ZUCKERMAN Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General TRAVIS A. GREAVES Deputy Assistant Attorney General GILBERT S. ROTHENBERG (202) 514-3361 TERESA E. MCLAUGHLIN (202) 514-4342 JUDITH A. HAGLEY (202) 514-8126 Attorneys Tax Division Department of Justice Post Office Box 502 Washington, D.C. 20044 -i- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of contents .......................................................................................... i Table of authorities .................................................................................. iii Glossary ...................................................................................................viii Jurisdictional statement ............................................................................ 1 Statement of the issue ................................................................................ 1 Applicable statutes and regulations .......................................................... 2 Statement of the case ................................................................................. 2 A. Procedural overview ................................................................
  • 2013 Annual Report to Congress02/25/2019 on VOLUME ONE

    2013 Annual Report to Congress02/25/2019 on VOLUME ONE

    National Taxpayer Advocate 2013 Annual Report to Congress02/25/2019 on VOLUME ONE viewed Last www.TaxpayerAdvocate.irs.gov/2013AnnualReport December 31, 2013 02/25/2019 on viewed Last National Taxpayer Advocate 2013 Annual Report to Congress02/25/2019 on VOLUME ONE viewed Last www.TaxpayerAdvocate.irs.gov/2013AnnualReport 02/25/2019 on viewed Last ii This page intentionally left blank. At their core, taxpayer rights are human rights. They are about our inherent humanity. Particularly when an organization is large, as is the IRS, and has power, as does the IRS, these rights serve as a bulwark against the organization’s tendency to arrange things in ways that are convenient for itself, but actually dehumanize us. Taxpayer rights, then, help ensure that taxpayers are treated in a humane manner. Nina E. Olson Last viewed onLaurence 02/25/2019 Neal Woodworth Memorial Lecture May 9, 2013 02/25/2019 on viewed Last iv This page intentionally left blank. Contents Contents PREFACE: A Path to Strengthening Tax Administration and Improving Voluntary Tax Compliance ...............................................................ix THE MOST SERIOUS PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED BY TAXPAYERS The Most Significant Issues Facing Taxpayers and the IRS Today Introduction .......................................................................1 1. TAXPAYER RIGHTS: The IRS Should Adopt a Taxpayer Bill of Rights as a Framework for Effective Tax Administration ...................................................5 2. IRS BUDGET: The IRS Desperately Needs More Funding to Serve Taxpayers and Increase Voluntary Compliance...................................................20 3. EMPLOYEE TRAINING: The Drastic Reduction in IRS Employee Training Impacts the Ability of the IRS to Assist Taxpayers and Fulfill its Mission ..........................40 4. TAXPAYER RIGHTS: Insufficient Education and Training About Taxpayer Rights Impairs IRS Employees’ Ability to Assist Taxpayers and Protect Their Rights ................51 5.
  • T.C. Memo. 2021-100 UNITED STATES TAX COURT ALEXANDER

    T.C. Memo. 2021-100 UNITED STATES TAX COURT ALEXANDER

    T.C. Memo. 2021-100 UNITED STATES TAX COURT ALEXANDER BERNARD WATHEN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 4310-18. Filed August 11, 2021. Alexander Bernard Wathen, pro se. Courtney M. Hill and Gabriel Okoye (student), for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION PUGH, Judge: In a notice of deficiency dated February 4, 2015, respondent determined the following deficiencies, additions to tax, and penalties:1 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. All monetary amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. Served 08/11/21 - 2 - [*2] Addition to tax Penalty Year Deficiency sec. 6651(a)(1) sec. 6662(a) 2010 $40,091 $10,023 $8,018 2011 29,615 7,404 5,923 The issues for decision are: (1) whether petitioner’s prior bankruptcy proceeding precludes respondent from pursuing the above deficiencies, additions to tax, and penalties;2 (2) whether petitioner failed to report gross receipts of $59,726 and $15,833 for 2010 and 2011, respectively, on Schedules C, Profit or Loss From Business; (3) whether petitioner failed to report partnership income of $1,951 for 2010 on Schedule E, Supplemental Income and Loss;3 (4) whether petitioner is entitled to deduct travel expenses of $8,732 and $21,980 for 2010 and 2011, respectively, on Schedules C; (5) whether petitioner is entitled to deduct office expenses of $46,717 and $53,420 for 2010 and 2011, respectively, on Schedules C; (6) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 2 At trial petitioner moved for summary judgment that res judicata, collateral estoppel, and judicial estoppel bar respondent from asserting these deficiencies, additions to tax, and penalties.
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

    United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

    Case: 08-3690 Document: 169 Filed: 09/28/2012 Pages: 199 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Nos. 08-3690, 08-3759, 08-4076, 08-4246, 08-4320, 09-1864 & 09-2174 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL A. VALLONE, WILLIAM S. COVER, MICHAEL T. DOWD, ROBERT W. HOPPER, TIMOTHY S. DUNN, and EDWARD BARTOLI, Defendants-Appellants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 04 CR 372—Charles R. Norgle, Sr., Judge. ARGUED MAY 3, 2011—DECIDED SEPTEMBER 28, 2012 Case: 08-3690 Document: 169 Filed: 09/28/2012 Pages: 199 2 Nos. 08-3690, 08-3759, 08-4076, 08-4246, 08-4320, 09-1864 & 09-2174 Before ROVNER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and YOUNG, District Judge. ROVNER, Circuit Judge. At the conclusion of an eleven- week trial, a jury convicted defendants Michael A. Vallone, William S. Cover, Michael T. Dowd, Robert W. Hopper, Timothy S. Dunn, and Edward Bartoli of conspiring to defraud the United States by impeding and impairing the functions of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and to commit offenses against the United States, along with related fraud and tax offenses. They were sen- tenced to prison terms ranging from 120 to 223 months. The defendants appeal their convictions and sentences. We affirm. I. This is the latest in a series of cases arising out of abusive trusts promoted by The Aegis Company (“Aegis”) and its sister company, Heritage Assurance Group (“Heri- tage”), both based in Palos Hills, Illinois. See United States v.
  • Challenging the Finality of Tax Court Judgments: When Is Final Not Really Final? Stephen C

    Challenging the Finality of Tax Court Judgments: When Is Final Not Really Final? Stephen C

    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Tax Journal Akron Law Journals 2005 Challenging the Finality of Tax Court Judgments: When Is Final Not Really Final? Stephen C. Gara Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akrontaxjournal Part of the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation Gara, Stephen C. (2005) "Challenging the Finality of Tax Court Judgments: When Is Final Not Really Final?," Akron Tax Journal: Vol. 20 , Article 2. Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akrontaxjournal/vol20/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Tax Journal by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Gara: Challenging the Finality of Tax Court Judgments: When Is Final No CHALLENGING THE FINALITY OF TAX COURT JUDGMENTS: WHEN Is FINAL NOT REALLY FINAL? Stephen C. Gara* I. INTRODUCTION The United States Tax Court serves a vital function within the federal tax system: the adjudication of tax controversies between the taxpayer and the government.' The court shares this function with the U.S. district courts and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, all of which possess broader subject matter jurisdiction.2 However, only the Tax Court provides a pre-payment forum for taxpayers seeking tax claim adjudication.
  • Asset Management Strategies Revisited

    Asset Management Strategies Revisited

    The Catholic Lawyer Volume 37 Number 2 Volume 37, Number 2 Article 6 Asset Management Strategies Revisited Charles P. Reynolds Daniel J. Wintz Dierdre Dessingue Halloran Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/tcl Part of the Catholic Studies Commons, and the Tax Law Commons This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Catholic Lawyer by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES REVISITED CHARLES P. REYNOLDS,* DANIEL J. WINTZ,** & DEIRDRE DESSINGUE HALLORAN*- This article consists of three short discussions. First, special legal issues concerning the arts, antiquities, and historical prop- erty of religious organizations will be addressed by Charles Rey- nolds. Second, Daniel Wintz will focus on retirement assets, in- cluding the legal requirements for and advantages of qualified pension plans. Finally, Deirdre Halloran, Associate General . Attorney in private practice, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Mr. Reynolds received both his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of New Mexico and currently represents the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Santa Fe. He is admitted to the bar in New Mexico and to practice before the United States Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Mr. Reynolds is a member of the Albu- querque Bar Association, the State Bar of New Mexico, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, and a member of the board of directors of the New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association.
  • The Individual and Tax Reform in Canada

    The Individual and Tax Reform in Canada

    THE INDIVIDUAL AND TAX REFORM IN CANADA GORDON BALE* Kingston, Ont. The long-awaited White Paper entitled Proposals for Tax Reform' was released on November 7th, 1969. It is far more faithful to the Report of the Royal Commission on Taxation,' more fre- quently referred to as the Carter Report after its chairman, than was generally anticipated. Yet, in spite of this, the White Paper was generally received with equanimity and the stock market initially at least greeted it with enthusiasm.' This reaction is, in part, a result of the mass educational experience in the field of taxa- tion which was initiated by the Carter Report. It is a great tribute to the quality of the Carter Report. This lucid and bold work of scholarship prompted much controversy and debate. The compel- ling logic of the Report and the pre-eminent place accorded to equity appear to have prevailed over many of its critics. This was clearly illustrated by the predominantly cool and critical recep- tion which was accorded to the Report by the Senate Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee on the White Paper which was released in September, 1970.4 The Canadian public apparently expects to see some fundamental tax reform and will not be *Gordon Bale, of the Faculty of Law, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario. 1 Proposals for Tax Reform (Ottawa, Queen's Printer, 1969), herein- after cited as White Paper. 'Report of the Royal Commission on Taxation (Ottawa, Queen's Printer, 1966), hereinafter cited as Report. 'The Toronto Globe and Mail, November 11th, 1969, p. B14 reported that: "The largest price rise on record yesterday sent stocks on the Toronto Stock Exchange to their highest level since June 10th.
  • Islamic Perspectives on Basic Income

    Islamic Perspectives on Basic Income

    Islamic Perspectives on Basic Income Abdullah Al-Shami and Katherine Bullock Abstract This article presents Islamic perspectives on the concept of Basic Income, and examines its emergence with the first Islamic society established at the time of the Prophet Muhammad. The scope of this research is to provide a historical account of Islamic society’s and Qur’anic foundations of social justice; to provide Islamic defi- nitions of the concepts involved in the Basic Income debate (such as wealth, poverty, and work); and to discuss the Islamic approach to Basic Income. Finally, the research will consider Islamic perspec- tives on the role of charity and the use of natural resources as sourc- es of revenue to fund Basic Income. Introduction: Provision of Basic Income and Islamic Approaches As governments strive to address growing inequality, the shortcomings of the welfare state, technological challenges to the labor-force, the rise of the precariat, and the changing nature of work in the twenty-first century, the Abdullah Al-Shami is a Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies and now research fellow at The Tessellate Institute, a non-profit research institute in Canada. He -ob tained his ILB in Islamic Law, ILM Degree in Comparative Islamic Jurisprudence from Saudi Arabia, and PhD in Comparative Islamic Jurisprudence from the Uni- versity of Manchester, UK. He has written and edited over ten books and over 60 research articles on Islamic Law and Islamic Studies. Katherine Bullock, Research Advisor at The Tessellate Institute, received her PhD in political science from the University of Toronto (1999). She is a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science, University of Toronto at Mississauga.
  • Why Are There Tax Havens?

    Why Are There Tax Havens?

    William & Mary Law Review Volume 52 (2010-2011) Issue 3 Article 5 December 2010 Why Are There Tax Havens? Adam H. Rosenzweig Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Tax Law Commons Repository Citation Adam H. Rosenzweig, Why Are There Tax Havens?, 52 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 923 (2010), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol52/iss3/5 Copyright c 2010 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr WHY ARE THERE TAX HAVENS? ADAM H. ROSENZWEIG* ABSTRACT Recently, the issue of tax havens has risen to the fore of the fiscal policy debate, with tax havens being singled out as the root cause of many of the fiscal shortfalls plaguing the governments of the world. Surprisingly, however, although there has been a fair amount of literature on why tax havens are harmful to the modern interna- tional tax regime, which countries become tax havens, and what means are available to combat tax havens, there has been less written specifically on the underlying question of why, notwithstanding all these points, tax havens exist in the first place, or why they persist in the face of such overwhelming criticism. This Article will fill that gap by directly confronting the question: why are there tax havens? To this end, this Article will propose for the first time that the focus of the international tax laws of wealthier countries, such as the United States, on capital neutrality—or making the flow of capital across borders easier and cheaper—can actually create or exacerbate the incentives necessary for poorer countries to act as tax havens.