DOCSLIB.ORG

Taxation of Partnerships - Legal General Report for the Nordic Tax Research Council´S Annual Meeting on 22 May 2015 in Aarhus

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Taxation of Partnerships - Legal General Report for the Nordic Tax Research Council´S Annual Meeting on 22 May 2015 in Aarhus Nordic Tax J. 2015 2:47–56 Report Open Access Liselotte Madsen Taxation of Partnerships - Legal general report for the Nordic Tax Research Council´s annual meeting on 22 May 2015 in Aarhus DOI 10.1515/ntaxj-2015-0005 though the similar Norwegian word is “utdeling”, and so Received Sep 08, 2015; accepted Sep 18, 2015 on. In English translation, the word “distribution” is used. I hope that it does not provide any linguistic challenges. The term partnership is used to the extent that it is not found necessary to indicate the national name, and ex- 1 Introduction and terminology presses only that it is a transparent business. First, a short review of the company law rules regard- This report has been written on the basis of a number of ing the establishment of partnerships will be carried out, Nordic national reports on the subject: Taxation of part- after which, the tax rules will be reviewed. nerships. The contributions from Denmark, Norway, Swe- den, and Iceland have been incorporated in the report to the best of my ability and by relevance. 2 Company law matters The term "partnership" is a general term for a num- ber of companies that have a common characteristic - First, it is relevant to relate to the company law rules ap- namely that they are not taxable entities, but rather trans- plicable to partnerships. A description of this has been parent for tax purposes. The company type, partnership, deemed important for the understanding of the civil law which is not a separate tax subject, can be found in all rules for partnerships, both in relation to the third parties the Nordic countries. In all the countries, there are part- (the creditors) and the inter-relationships among the part- nerships in which all the partners have unlimited liabil- ners. ity (general partnerships), and partnerships in which there The rules in Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Denmark, are both limited liable partners and unlimited liable part- respectively, have some significant common features. In all ners (limited partnerships). In the Nordic countries, there the countries, there are business structures in which all the is a considerable variation in how the word transparency partners have unlimited liability (general partnerships), is used for the distribution of income and expenditure just as all the countries have business structures in which among the partners, and there are different traditions of only some of the partners have unlimited liability (limited whether company law and tax law issues arise out of legal partnerships). In Norway, Sweden, and Iceland, the com- regulation or have to be derived from more general prin- pany law rules regarding the inter-relationships among the ciples and practices. In Iceland, you are free to choose at partners and the relationship to third parties are regulated the time when you establish a partnership, whether the by statute. It is different in Denmark, where the rules reg- partnership should be transparent or taxed as a taxable ulating company law are not laid down by law, but cre- entity. This freedom of choice does not take place in the ated in practice. In all the countries, regulation to a high other countries. degree consists of non-mandatory statutory rules, but in In the report, the original language terms for the rel- Denmark, however, regulation consists of non-mandatory evant types of companies are used. These terms are also rules created in practice. italicized. On the other hand, I have tried to use uniform Norway is the country in which company law matters expressions for the same actions regardless of the country. regarding partnerships in general are regulated the most For example, the Danish word “udlodning” is used even and in most detail, and Norwegian legislation, for exam- ple, states that a partnership agreement must be estab- Liselotte Madsen: Associate Professor, Aarhus University; Email: [email protected] © 2015 L. Madsen, published by De Gruyter Open. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License. 48 Ë L. Madsen lished¹. There are additional material requirements to the ity towards the creditors if this is registered in the Register content of the partnership agreement. In addition, there of Business Enterprises (Fortaksregisteret)or is known by are, for example, statutory rules on the size of limited the creditors. partners´ deposits, because there is a requirement stating that limited partners must make a deposit of at least NOK 20,000.² In the other countries, the rule is that the part- 2.1.1 Establishment ners themselves decide on the size of any deposits, and the rules that should apply among the partners. There are different standards for when a partnership is In the following, the companies in which all the part- considered to be established. ners have unlimited liability will be reviewed. In Denmark, there are no formal requirements for the establishment of a partnership. Such a freedom of contract may result in doubt about whether a partnership has been 2.1 Companies, in which all the partners established at all, and challenges can arise in relation to have unlimited liability assessing whether an amount that a person has invested in a business, should be regarded as a loan, or whether In Denmark, the term interessentskab (general partnership) the amount is invested in the expectation that the person is used about a co-operation of at least two partners about is part of the partnership. Further, it is not a requirement the operation of a joint commercial activity. The general that capital should be invested in a partnership. partnership (interessentskab) is defined by law according Similar issues are not found in Norway, since, as men- to which a partnership is “... a business, where all the part- tioned above, there are legal requirements regarding the ners are personally liable without limitation, jointly and sev- establishment of a partnership agreement for both gen- erally for the obligations of the business”³. eral partnerships (ansvarligeselskaper) and limited part- In Swedish law, the handelsbolag (general partner- nerships (kommanditselskaper). Among other things, the ship) is similar to the Danish interessentskab in that all the partnership agreement should contain information about partners are unlimited and jointly and severally liable for the partnership’s name, name and address of all the part- the obligations of the business⁴. ners in the partnership (except sleeping partners), the aim In Icelandic law, a partnership in which all the part- of the partnership, whether the partners are obliged to ners have unlimited liability is called a sameignarfélag and make cash/non-cash contributions and, if so, the size of is also regulated by law.⁵ the contributions. When establishing a new ansvarligsel- In Norwegian law, a comparable business structure is skap (general partnership), there is no requirement regard- called an ansvarligt selskap (general partnership). In Nor- ing investment of capital. If you are running a sole propri- wegian company law, an ansvarligt selskap is defined as etorship and take on a partner, it is considered as a new a business in which the partners have an unlimited per- establishment of a partnership. As a general rule, the sole sonal responsibility for the total liabilities of the business proprietorship is considered realized by the owner. Tak- either exclusively or partly, and together they account for ing on a new partner in an already established partnership the total liabilities of the business and act as such towards will not be regarded as realization for the other partners. third parties⁶. A Norwegian ansvarlig selskap differs from Input value and invested capital for the share is set to a similar business structures in the other Nordic countries possible investment in the business. as according to the Norwegian rules, it is possible to share In Sweden, businesses also have to enter into a part- the responsibility between the partners so that there is no nership agreement in connection with general partner- joint and several liability for the obligations of the busi- ships (handelsbolag), but there are no statutory rules on ness. The partners can only share the business responsibil- the content of such a partnership agreement, which may also simply be concluded in writing. In Iceland, there seems to be no requirements on the 1 Cf. the Norwegian company law sections 2–3 and sections 3–1 (sel- conclusion of partnership agreements between the part- skapsloven §2–3 og 3–1). ners either, but this does, of course, not change the fact 2 The Norwegian company law sections 3–5 (selskapslovens §3–5) that it is recommendable to conclude such an agreement. 3 The Danish act on certain commercial undertakings section 2, para- graph 1 (Lovomvisseerhvervsdrivendevirksomheder §2, stk. 1.) 4 Chapter 2 Section 20 BL (2 kap. 20 §BL (bolagslagen)). 5 Lög um sameignarfélög 2007 no. 50 27 March 6 Section 1-2, first paragraph b(§1–2 første led bokstav b). Taxation of partnerships Ë 49 2.1.2 Withdrawal In Norway and Sweden, the partner can direct his re- course claim against the partnership or against the other Denmark, Sweden, and Norway have uniform rules with partners. In Denmark, a recourse claim can only be di- regard to the partners´ ability to withdraw from a partner- rected against the other partners. The practical difference ship without dissolving it. The Norwegian rules are gov- between these two options does not appear to be large. erned by law and conclude that a partner may withdraw from the business with 6 months’ notice⁷. In Sweden and Denmark, the rules are not statutory and thus, in these 2.2 Special on limited partnerships countries, the rule is that partners can only withdraw with the consent of the other partners.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Merverdiavgiften Og Kommunene
    NOU Norges offentlige utredninger 2003: 3 Merverdiavgiften og kommunene Konkurransevridninger mellom kommuner og private Utredning fra et utvalg oppnevnt ved kongelig resolusjon 11. januar 2002. Avgitt til Finansdepartementet 18. desember 2002. Statens forvaltningstjeneste Informasjonsforvaltning Oslo 2003 ISSN 0333-2306 ISBN 82-583-0683-9 Sats/Trykk: AIT Trondheim AS/AIT Otta AS Til Finansdepartementet Ved kongelig resolusjon 11. januar 2002 ble det oppnevnt et utvalg for å vurdere ulike løsninger som gjør at merverdiavgiften virker nøytral for kommunenes beslutninger. Utvalget legger med dette fram sin utredning. Oslo, 18. desember 2002 Jørn Rattsø leder Brita Bye Trond Christensen Trine Beate Groven Liv Kristine Hammer Tor S. Kildal Tor Lande Gerd Leira Torill Lønningdal Tom Rådahl Ole Jørgen Wilberg Erik Vassnes Erik Mæhlen Larsen Lars Einar Legernes Jan Erik Mardal Åsne Hana Torgersen Innhold 1 Utvalgets mandat og konkurransevridning – Merverdi- sammensetning ............................. 11 avgiftsloven § 11 tredje ledd ........... 32 1.1 Utvalgets mandat ............................. 11 3.5.5 Avgiftsfritaket for offentlig vei – 1.2 Utvalgets sammensetning ............... 12 Merverdiavgiftsloven § 16 første 1.3 Utvalgets tolkning av mandatet ...... 12 ledd nr. 13 ......................................... 32 1.4 Utvalgets arbeid ............................... 13 1.5 Leserveiledning ................................ 13 4 Kommunal tjenesteproduksjon 33 4.1 Innledning ......................................... 33 2 Sammendrag og konklusjoner
    [Show full text]
  • Del 1 – Hovedblankett
    Samordnet registermelding Del 1 – Hovedblankett for registrering i Enhetsregisteret, Foretaksregisteret, Merverdiavgiftsregisteret, NAV Aa-registeret, SSBs Bedrifts- og foretaksregister, Stiftelsesregisteret og Skattedirektoratets register over upersonlige skattytere 1. Navn/foretaksnavn 1.1 Enhetens fullstendige navn/foretaksnavn (fylles alltid ut) Organisasjonsnummer: ı ı ı ı ı ı ı ı ı ı 1.2 Eventuelt nytt navn/foretaksnavn. For enheter registrert i Foretaksregisteret er navne-/foretaksnavneendringen gebyrbelagt 1.3 Eget navn på virksomheten (oppgis bare hvis selve virksomheten drives under et annet navn enn enhetens fullstendige navn/foretaksnavn) 2. Meldingen gjelder 2.1 Enhet som ikke er registrert tidligere 2.3 Beslutning om (enhet som ikke har eget organisasjonsnummer) oppløsning av enhet Ved kjøp, salg eller nedleggelse > av virksomhet må felt 9 og 10 2.2 Endringer/nye opplysninger 2.4 Sletting av enhet fylles ut. (fyll bare ut de felt endringen gjelder) 3. Registrering i andre registre (i tillegg til registrering i Enhetsregisteret) 3.1 Skal enheten registreres i Foretaksregisteret? Nei Ja > Se veiledningen om registrerings- Det er gebyr på registreringen. rett/-plikt i Foretaksregisteret. 3.2 Har virksomheten omsetning som kommer inn under Nei Ja > Hvis ja, sender du inn blankettens merverdiavgiftslovens bestemmelser? del 2 når beløpsgrensen er nådd. Se egen veiledning for del 2. 3.3 Enheten - har eller venter å få arbeidstakere Nei Ja - betaler/skal betale andre enn arbeidstakere Nei Ja vederlag som det skal betales arbeidsgiveravgift > Hvis ja, får du nærmere informasjon av etter folketrygdloven § 23-2 tilsendt. 3.4 Har eller venter enheten å få virksomhet på flere adresser? Nei Ja 4. Hovedkontorets adresse (forretningsadresse/besøksadresse) Gate, husnummer eller sted Postnummer Poststed Kommune Land Telefonnummer Telefaksnummer Mobiltelefonnummer Hjemmeside 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Norskregistrert Utenlandsk Foretak (NUF)
    Norskregistrert utenlandsk foretak (NUF) som alternativ til AS En analyse av sentrale rettslige og faktiske problemstillinger knyttet til NUF som alternativ til norsk aksjeselskap i kjølvannet av endringer i aksjeloven mv. Kandidatnummer: 731 Leveringsfrist: 25.11.2014 Antall ord: 16 672 Innholdsfortegnelse 1 INNLEDNING .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Innledning og problemstilling ........................................................................................... 1 1.2 Avgrensning og videre fremstilling ................................................................................... 2 1.3 Begrepsavklaringer ............................................................................................................ 3 1.3.1 Norskregistrert utenlandsk foretak (NUF) ........................................................... 3 1.4 Metode og rettskilder ........................................................................................................ 4 1.4.1 Norsk rett.............................................................................................................. 4 1.4.2 Engelsk rett .......................................................................................................... 4 2 GENERELLE UTGANGSPUNKT .................................................................................. 6 2.1 Selkapsdeltakernes ansvar for selskapets forpliktelser ..................................................... 6 2.1.1 Aksjeselskap........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Den Norske Advokatforening (PDF, 237KB)
    Finansdepartementet Sendt elektronisk Deres ref.: 15/2550 SL AEI/KR Dato: 19. juni 2017 Vår ref.: 243776 Høring - Forslag om endring av skatteloven § 2-2 første ledd 1. Innledning Vi viser til departementets høringsbrev av 16.3.2017 vedrørende ovennevnte høring. Det er en prioritert oppgave for Advokatforeningen å drive rettspolitisk arbeid gjennom høringsuttalelser. Advokatforeningen har derfor en rekke lovutvalg inndelt etter fagområder. I våre lovutvalg sitter advokater med særskilte kunnskaper innenfor det aktuelle fagfelt og hvert lovutvalg består av advokater med ulik erfaringsbakgrunn og kompetanse innenfor fagområdet. Arbeidet i lovutvalgene er frivillig og ulønnet. Advokatforeningen ser det som sin oppgave å være en uavhengig høringsinstans med fokus på rettssikkerhet og på kvaliteten av den foreslåtte lovgivningen. I saker som angår advokaters rammevilkår vil imidlertid regelendringen også bli vurdert opp mot advokatbransjens interesser. Det vil i disse tilfellene bli opplyst at vi uttaler oss som en berørt bransjeorganisasjon og ikke som et uavhengig ekspertorgan. Årsaken til at vi sondrer mellom disse rollene er at vi ønsker å opprettholde og videreutvikle den troverdighet Advokatforeningen har som et uavhengig og upolitisk ekspertorgan i lovgivningsprosessen. I den foreliggende sak uttaler Advokatforeningen seg som ekspertorgan. Saken er forelagt lovutvalget for skatterett. Lovutvalget består av Hanne Kristin Skaarberg Holen (elder), Cecilie Amdahl. Andreas Bullen, Thor Leegaard, Stine Lettrem-Eliassen, Amund Noss. Advokatforeningen avgir følgende høringsuttalelse: 2. Sakens bakgrunn Finansdepartementet foreslår i høringsnotatet en regel om at selskaper som er stiftet i Norge er hjemmehørende i Norge for skatteformål. I tillegg foreslås at selskaper som har reell ledelse i Norge er hjemmehørende her. Unntak fra dette skal etter forslaget gjelde der hvor et selskap er hjemmehørende i en annen stat etter skatteavtale.
    [Show full text]
  • GUIDE to GOING GLOBAL CORPORATE Norway
    GUIDE TO GOING GLOBAL CORPORATE Norway Downloaded: 01 Oct 2021 INTRODUCTION GUIDE TO GOING GLOBAL | CORPORATE INTRODUCTION Welcome to the 2021 edition of DLA Piper’s Guide to Going Global – Corporate. GUIDE TO GOING GLOBAL SERIES To compete and be successful today, companies need to develop and scale their businesses globally. Each country presents its own set of unique laws, rules and regulations and business practices that companies must understand to be successful. In order to help clients meet the opportunities and challenges of expanding internationally, we have created a handy set of global guides that cover the basics companies need to know when going into and doing business in new countries. The Guide to Going Global series reviews business-relevant corporate, employment, intellectual property and technology, executive compensation, and tax laws in key jurisdictions around the world. CORPORATE The Guide to Going Global – Corporate has been created based on our research, our experience and feedback we have received from clients in both established and emerging businesses that have expanded internationally. We hope it will be a helpful resource for you. The Guide to Going Global – Corporate covers corporate basics in 54 key jurisdictions across the Americas, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle East. We touch on a wide range of corporate issues for companies expanding internationally, including establishing a corporate presence and choice of entity, liability considerations, tax presence and tax filings, capital requirements, the formation process, director, officer and shareholder requirements, registration processes, office lease processes and possible exit strategies. With more than 600 lawyers, DLA Piper’s global Corporate group is one of the largest in the world, with one of the widest geographical footprints of any global law firm and experience across the legal areas companies need as they expand internationally.
    [Show full text]
  • Organisering Av Norske Havner Fra Kommunal Etat Til Selskap
    rapport av adv. Vibeke Resch-Knudsen Organisering av norske havner Fra kommunal etat til selskap 4. april 2013 Innhold 1. ORGANISASJONSMULIGHETER FOR KOMMUNALE HAVNER 4 1.1. Utpekte havner 4 1.2. Stamnetthavner 5 2. KoMMUNERS MYNDIGHETSUTØVELSE ETTER HFL 8 3. ORGANISERING 9 3.1. Kommunal etat 11 3.2. Kommunale foretak (KF) 12 3.3. Interkommunale samarbeidsløsninger 12 3.3.1. Interkommunale samarbeid etter kml. § 27 13 3.3.2. Vertskommunesamarbeid med nemnd 14 3.4. Havnen organisert i et selskap 14 3.4.1. Interkommunale selskaper etter kml. § 27 15 3.4.2. Interkommunale selskaper (IKS) 16 3.4.3. Aksjeselskaper 17 3.4.4. Samvirkeforetak 19 3.4.5. Allmennaksjeselskap 19 3.5. Vurdering av de ulike organisasjonsformene (tabell) 20 4. STYRING AV HAVNESELSKAP 24 4.1. Operative eierorgan i selskaper 24 4.2. Styrets sammensetning og rolle 24 4.3. Selskapets formål 25 4.4. Konsernhavnen 26 5. SKATTEPLIKT 27 6. UTBYTTE AV HAVNESELSKAP 29 7. GARANTIER OG OFFENTLIG STØTTE 31 8. MVA 33 9. OFFENTLEGLOVA OG FORVALTNINGSLOVEN 33 10. ETABLERING AV SELSKAP/OMDANNING 35 10.1. Regnskapsmessige forhold 35 10.2. Skatte og avgiftsmessige forhold ved omdanning 35 10.3. Dokumentavgift 36 10.4. Ansattes rettigheter og plikter 36 11. OPPSUMMERING 37 Fotnoter finner du i margene under denne lilla streken. 1. ORGANISASJONSMULIGHETER betegnelse for lokale havner, fiskeri- FOR KOMMUNALE HAVNER havner, fritidsbåthavner eller lignende. I dag består havnestrukturen i Norge av Begrepet havn er definert i havne- og 5 utpekte havner og 31 stamnetthavner. farvannsloven (HFL) § 4: 1.1. Utpekte havner «Med havn menes i denne loven områder som er Transportpolitikken legger opp til at til bruk for fartøy; transport bør flyttes over fra vei til sjø så langt det lar seg gjøre, gjennom å • som skal laste eller losse gods eller trans- portere passasjerer som ledd i sjøtransport legge opp til at sjøtransport skal være en eller annen næringsvirksomhet, foretrukket transportform for transport av gods over lange avstander.
    [Show full text]
  • Norway: Assessment by the EITI International Secretariat
    EITI International Secretariat 15 April 2021 Validation of Requirement 2.5 – Norway: Assessment by the EITI International Secretariat EITI International Secretariat 1 Phone: +47 222 00 800 E-mail: [email protected] Twitter: @EITIorg www.eiti.org Address: Rådhusgata 26, 0151 Oslo, Norway Validation of Requirement 2.5 – Norway Assessment by the EITI International Secretariat Validation of Requirement 2.5 – Norway: Assessment by the EITI International Secretariat Contents 1. Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 2 2. Background ............................................................................................................................................. 2 3. Assessment of Requirement 2.5 on beneficial ownership .................................................................. 4 Annex A: Technical assessment ................................................................................................................ 6 1. Summary The International Secretariat’s assessment is that Norway has made “inadequate progress” in meeting the initial criteria for implementing Requirement 2.5 on beneficial ownership. Norway has enacted legislation to establish a publicly accessible ultimate beneficial ownership (UBO) registry. It will apply to all companies that apply for or hold a participating interest in exploration or production oil, gas or mining licenses. Regulations supplementing the act were subject to public
    [Show full text]
  • Institutt for Offentlig Retts Bibliografi 1957-2006
    Institutt for offentlig retts bibliografi 1957-2006 Utarbeidet ved Det juridiske fakultetsbibliotek av Lars Finholt Jansen Randi Halveg Iversby (red.) Bård Sverre Tuseth (red.) I forbindelse med Institutt for offentlig retts 50-årsjubileum har Det juridiske fakultetsbibliotek utarbeidet instituttets bibliografi, det vil si en oversikt over skriftlige arbeider av instituttansatte i løpet av IORs første femti år. Bibliografien er begrenset til juridiske arbeider produsert ved Institutt for offentlig rett eller de instituttene som er innlemmet i Institutt for offentlig rett innenfor den enkeltes ansettelsesperiode. Forord til den elektroniske utgaven: Bibliografien foreligger hovedsakelig slik den ble publisert i Institutt for offentlig retts skriftserie nr 9 2007. Noen mindre feil er rettet og blanke sider er fjernet for å tilpasse dokumentet til det elektroniske formatet. Redaktørene, 15. mars 2012. Shaheen Sardar Ali ........................................................................................................... 10 Ivar Alvik .......................................................................................................................... 10 Johs. Andenæs................................................................................................................... 11 Kjell V. Andorsen ............................................................................................................. 31 Ole Rasmus Asbjørnsen ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Eierskapsmelding 2014
    EIERSKAP SM ELDING Haugfoss kraftstasjon ved Blaafarveværket. Eier er Modum Kraftprod 2014 Inntaksdammen i Ramfoss, Ramfoss Kraftlag Eierskapsmelding, vedtatt i Kommunestyret 20.6.11, sak 51/11. Oppdatert august 2012 (K-sak 70/12), 1 oppdatert august 2013 (K-sak 66/13), sist oppdatert august 2014. Innhold Del I Eierstyring ........................................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Innledning ......................................................................................................................... 4 1.1.1 Bakgrunn for eierskapsmeldingen ................................................................................. 4 1.1.2 Oppbygning av eierskapsmeldingen .............................................................................. 4 1.2 Å eie er å ville, motiver for selskapsdannelse................................................................... 4 1.2.1 Finansielt motivert ......................................................................................................... 5 1.2.2 Politisk motivert ............................................................................................................. 5 1.2.3 Effektivisering................................................................................................................ 5 1.2.4 Samfunnsøkonomisk motivert ....................................................................................... 5 1.2.5 Regionalpolitisk motivert..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Workshops No. 6/2005 165 the Future of the Corporate Taxation
    √ Oesterreichische Nationalbank Stability and Security. Workshops Proceedings of OeNB Workshops Capital Taxation after EU Enlargement January 21, 2005 No. Eurosystem 6 The Future of the Corporate Income Taxation in the European Union Sijbren Cnossen University of Maastricht A. Introduction The future of capital income taxation in the European Union (EU) hinges importantly on the future of the corporation tax. No doubt, schedular capital (income) taxes on real estate and the earnings of small-businesses will be around for a long time to come, but the base of a comprehensive capital income tax requires the inclusion of corporate earnings, i.e. profits, interest and royalties. Capital income taxation, broadly defined, will wither if the body politic does not want to tax corporate earnings, either deliberately or by ignoring the policy and administrative issues that arise in a globalised capital market. Accordingly, this paper focuses mainly on corporation tax (CT) regimes. The future of the corporation tax starts now. Therefore, Part B surveys and evaluates the actual CT regimes in the EU to see whether they yield any clues about what the future may hold in store. The survey starts with an analysis of corporation-income tax relationships in the Member States centered on the treatment of distributed and retained profits. Subsequently, there is a comparison between nominal tax rates on various forms of capital income (retained profits, dividends, interest) and labor income. This is followed by a review of the most important tax base features, including the use of tax incentives. Finally, there is a discussion of a number of technical aspects that bear on the enforcement of the taxation of corporate earnings.
    [Show full text]
  • The Double Taxation Relief NORWAY Order 1969
    Supplement to the "Trinidad and Tobago Gazette" Vol. 8, No. 130 - 25th December, 1969 GOVERNMENT NOTICE NO. 175 TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO THE INCOME TAX ORDINANCE, CH. 33 No.1 ORDER MADE BY THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL UNDER SECTION 47(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ORDINANCE, AS ENACTED BY SECTION 32 OF THE FINANCE ACT, 1966 THE DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (NORWAY) ORDER, 1969 WHEREAS it is provided by subsection (1) of section 47 of the Income Tax Ordinance that if the Governor-General by Order published in the Gazette declares that arrangements specified in the Order have been made with the Government of any country with a view to affording relief from double taxation in relation to income tax and any tax of a similar character imposed by the laws of that country, and that it is expedient that those arrangements shall have effect: And whereas by a Convention dated the 20th day of June, 1969, made between the Government of Trinidad and Tobago and the Government of Norway, arrangements were made inter alia for the avoidance of double taxation: Now, therefore, the Governor-General in pursuance of the said subsection (1) of section 47 of the Income Tax Ordinance is please to order, and it is hereby ordered as follows:- 1. This Order may be cited as the Double Taxation Relief (Norway) Order, 1969. 2. It is hereby declared- 1 (a) that the arrangements specified in the Schedule have been made with the Government of Norway; (b) that it is expedient that those arrangements should have effect. SCHEDULE CONVENTION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO AND THE GOVERNMENT
    [Show full text]
  • SL (AT) Aktiengesellschaft, AG (AT) Erwerbs- Und Wirtschaftsgenossenschaft (AT) Europäische Genossenschaft, SCE (AT) Europäisc
    SL (AT) Aktiengesellschaft, AG (AT) Erwerbs- und Wirtschaftsgenossenschaft (AT) Europäische Genossenschaft, SCE (AT) Europäische Gesellschaft, SE (AT) Europäische wirtschaftliche Interessenvereinigung, EWIV (AT) Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts, GesbR (AT) Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung, GesmbH, GmbH (AT) Kommandit-Erwerbsgesellschaft, KEG (AT) Kommanditgesellschaft, KG (AT) Offene Erwerbsgesellschaft, OEG (AT) Offene Gesellschaft, OG (AT) Offene Handelsgesellschaft, OHG (AT) Privatstiftung (AT) Verein (AT) Europäische Gesellschaft, SE (AT) Europäische wirtschaftliche Interessenvereinigung, EWIV (AT) Europäische Genossenschaft, SCE (BE) société anonyme, SA / de naamloze vennootschap, NV (BE) société privée à responsabilité limitée, SPRL / de beslotenvennootschap met beperkte (BE) la société coopérative à responsabilité limitée, SCRL/de coöperative vennootschap met beperkte (BE) la société coopérative par actions, SCPA/de coöperative vennootschap op aandelen, CVOA (BE) société en commandite simple, SCS / de gewone commanditaire vennootschap, Comm. V. (BE) société en commandite par actions, SCA / de commanditaire vennootschap op aandelen, Comm. V.A. (BE) société en nom collectif, SNC / de vennootschap onder firma, VOF (BE) société européenne, SE / Europese vennootschap, SE (BE) groupement européen d'intérêt économique, GEIE / Europees Economisch Samenwerkingsverband, (BE) société coopérative européenne, SCE / Europese Coöperatieve Vennootschap, SCE (BG) акционерно дружество, АД (BG) еднолично акционерно дружество, ЕАД (BG) дружество
    [Show full text]