Capital Pty Ltd is inquiring into the Commissioner of Tax’s notice disallowing the tax deduction for bad debt. The Commissioner based the argument on the premise that Capital Pty Ltd is a mere appendage of Eastfield Ltd. This being the case, it is necessary to examine the exact relationship between Capital Pty Ltd and Eastfield Ltd and determine the likelihood of the courts lifting the corporate veil.
Separate Entity
Salomon v Salomon & Co established the key principle that an “incorporated company is a separate legal entity from its founder, shareholders and directors”. To further this point, the Albazero case provided authority within a group of companies, whereby each company is a separate legal entity with distinct legal
…show more content…
This is verified by the fact that all of the profits of Capital were to be distributed to Eastfield through a dividend payment. Secondly, the subsidiary must be actively conducting the business as appointed by the parent. Since Capital Pty Ltd was initially set up for the financing needs of Eastfield, and solely used the workforce of Eastfield, this second criteria is met. Further, since Eastfield ‘decided on a strategic plan which called for a new corporate structure’, essentially supplying the debt finance for Eastfield, it can be said that Eastfield was the head and brain of this trading venture, thus meeting the third criteria. Additionally, as Eastfield decided all decisions regarding this capital funding structure, the 4th agency principle is met; whereby the parent company governs the venture and determining capital structure. Since ‘Capital earned significant interest income…from the repayment of the various loans…undertaken by Eastfield’ it can be established that the parent company, Eastfield, maintained profits through its own skill and direction towards the subsidiary. Lastly, the parent company must be in constant and effectual control, which is confirmed by the fact that all the directors of the subsidiary company, sit on the board of the parent company, thus establishing constant and effective control. Through the above mentioned, it can be significantly argued that Capital and Eastfield meet all 6 requirements that
BIS did not breach duty of care because according to "N.Y. GOB. LAW 18-105: NY Code -Section 18-105: Duties of skiers" 10-11, each skier shall have the duty not to willfully stop on any slope or trail where such stopping is likely to cause a collision with other skiers or vehicles and to yield to other skiers when entering a trail or starting downhill. Craig neglected his duty to both.
Woodward, S., Bird, H. & Sievers, S. (2005). Corporations Law in Principle 7th ed. Pyrmont, NSW: Lawbook Co.
I returned Ms Dunlap call. She said wants to place a formal complaint against the CPS worker Miranda Larson because she illegally removed her children based on false accusations. She stated that Miranda, like the entire CW are doing criminal activities. She then asked me if I had talked to her attorney? What was my conversation about, What did I disclose to them? What did they told me about her? "Be honest" she said. I informed her that I do contact her attorney because in one her DHS 0170 form the Discrimination Complaint form, she provided us her attorney's phone number and my conversation was about how can we contact her. She said that we should not be talking to her attorney because she just fired her.
By which became a contract on 11/28/2010 we were charged $2500 for legal services but the contract states deposit is not refundable under any circumstances. My first payment started on 11/12/2010 for the total amount of $1,020.00 when I made my first payment I took all my required documents to fill out all the packets I was given for immigration to send them, the benefited are Rogelio Medina and Norma Medina. The request was from our son Jesus Medina. On 7/21/2011 I was sent an appointment for my finger prints before that I received receipts of payments which I made on 6/15/2011 for the amounts of $420 and $1,070 plus $1,000 on 9/6/2011 for the total amount of 2,490 I was also charged and extra 1,250 for his service making the grand total
Elizabeth Blackwell showed herself as a dedicated and diligent doctor during five years of work in Neurological Associates, and made a significant contribution to the profit margin of the partnership. The partners were delighted with hiring Blackwell in 2005 and they introduced her to medical physicians at a conference. But the referral base Blackwell went through was not the result of that investment by the partnership but instead it was the evidence of her professionalism in neurological sphere.
What type of exemption means he probably won't have to provide disclosure reports to the government or buyers?
Lisa Levan 231 Rasberry St. Bethlehem, Pa. 18018 (610) 442-6327 was advised of the identity of Investigator Sean P. Brennan and of the confidential nature and purpose of the interview, Levan, provided the following information:
▪ Discuss the facts of the case study. What facts are in dispute? What facts are agreed?
Exercising personal jurisdiction over SET would not comport with due process under either federal or Illinois constitutions, because Plaintiff cannot meet the standard to satisfy the federal due process requirements. Federal due process requires Plaintiff to establish: “(1) the nonresident defendant had ‘minimum contacts’ with the forum state such that there was ‘fair warning’ that the nonresident defendant may be hauled into court there; (2) the action arose out of or related to the defendant's contacts with the forum state; and (3) it is reasonable to require the defendant to litigate in the forum state.” Keller, 834 N.E.2d at 936.
I informed Ms. Ray that I needed to discuss some concerns with her regarding the RA, Maria Evans.
This case analysis commences by explaining the type of accounting officer needed to execute the job functions for the client, Big Spenders Inc. The next objective will be to examine the income statements of the two prospective business entities that the client intends to choose from concerning investment – in order to diversify its portfolio. The strategies that will be explored in terms of the analysis of the income statements includes the computation of (i) operation profit margin, (ii) gross margin, (iii) net profit margin, and (iv) return on equity – for both companies of interest. The results of examinations will put the accountant in a position to make sounds recommendation to his superior at BUSI 1043 LLP, so that Big Spenders Inc. can be properly guided.
Salomon v Salomon and Co. Ltd (1897) AC 22 - when Aron Salomon sold his business to Salomon and Co. Ltd. Company, where he was still the major shareholder and some of his family was also a member. He also received a debenture as part of the payment for a secured term. But when the company has gone into liquidation during the 1890’s some argued that his
Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 All ER 127 (UK Court of Appeal), Reg Glass Pty Ltd v Rivers Locking Systems Pty Ltd (1968) 120 CLR 516 (High Court)
If you feel that the decision by the Board is unfair and that there is no merit to the complaints filed against you, you must consult a Kansas City professional defense lawyer to fight for your right to prove your innocence. Any disciplinary action taken against you can have a long-term impact on your career as well as your ability to practice. The biggest problem with complaints against professionals such as doctors, nurses, dentists etc. is that anybody can file such a complaint. This allows anybody - whether it’s a patient, a client, a client's family member, a colleague, a supervisor - to simply contact the Board and allege that you did this or that. A large number of investigations conducted by licensing boards are based on complaints
The purpose of this assignment is to discuss the creation and application the case law resulting from the decision in Donoghue v Stevenson . This decision is often cited in relation to the tort of negligence and a duty of care. As such it could be misunderstood as being the preeminent case for the principles of negligence or duty of care alone. It is however the landmark precedent case for the tort of negligence outside of a contract when taking into account ‘duty of care’ and the ‘neighbour priciple’.