Mark Leeds’ Post

On Thursday 6 June, last, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands ruled in a number of cases that the legislation to calculate the taxable income for personal income tax purposes with respect to income from savings and investments (so-called Box 3 income) - just as the Supreme Court ruled in its so-called Christmas Judgment on 21 December 2021- violates both the prohibition of discrimination and the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions as laid down in international treaties, in case the taxable notional or deemed return on savings and investments is higher than the actual return. In this article, Peter van Dijk, partner at BUREN, and Jitze de Beer, tax advisor at BUREN, discuss this ruling and the impact it will have on taxpayers. Read the full article by clicking on the following link: https://lnkd.in/gPB2AVWh #BUREN #legal #tax #notary #box3 #supremecourt

This article argues that our tax system has become untenable due to its complexity and uncertainty. The recent trust reporting rules for bare trusts are a prime example. “The real issue here is that over the past decade our government has been fixated on revamping so many areas of our tax law that it has become unbearably complex.” After reading, what do you think? #taxes #canadiantaxes #taxplanning

Rebate under Section 87A Extended to Special Rate Income I am pleased to bring attention to a significant legal development that addresses a contentious issue surrounding Section 87A of the Income Tax Act. In the case of Beena Manishbhai Fofaria vs. Assistant Officer, dated November 22, 2024, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has decisively ruled that the rebate under Section 87A is applicable even against income taxed at special rates. This judgment is pivotal as it resolves a long-standing dispute regarding the scope and applicability of the rebate under Section 87A, particularly in the context of special rate incomes, such as short-term capital gains (Section 111A) or long-term capital gains (Section 112/112A). Key Highlights of the Judgment: 🔹 It affirms that the intent of Section 87A is to provide tax relief to eligible taxpayers, irrespective of the rate at which income is taxed. 🔹 The judgment provides a precedential reference for taxpayers who may have been denied this rebate on technical grounds. 🔹 It reinforces a taxpayer-friendly interpretation of the law, aligned with the principles of equity and fairness. This decision marks a significant milestone for taxpayers, as it sets a crucial benchmark for both assessment proceedings and appellate reviews. The ruling will undoubtedly guide the resolution of similar disputes and strengthen taxpayers' claims for rightful benefits under the Act. I encourage tax professionals, advisors, and taxpayers to review this judgment in detail and leverage its insights for accurate tax compliance and planning. Your thoughts and perspectives on this matter are welcome—let's discuss its broader implications! #IncomeTax #Taxation #Section87A #LandmarkJudgment #TaxRebate #LegalUpdates

Where a taxpayer is seeking to challenge a default assessment made by the Commissioner, there are a number of important issues that potentially arise.  There is a provision in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (ITAA36) which confers on the Commissioner the power to issue what is usually called a “default assessment”. The circumstances in which this power may be exercised are not confined to situations where a taxpayer has not lodged an income tax return but extend to circumstances in which the Commissioner considers that there has not been a proper disclosure in a return that has been lodged. Over the years, a substantial body of case law has developed as a result of taxpayer challenges to default assessments. There are fundamental difficulties that arise for a taxpayer in this kind of case, and that's exactly what the June edition of our Taxation in Australia journal explores in its regular Tax Tips article. It explores:  🟦 The background 🟦 The legislation  🟦 The Buzadzic case – about a specific taxpayer, a Mr Buzadzic 🟦 The AAT  🟦 The Full Federal Court 🟦 Observations made by the author (TaxCounsel Pty Ltd) You can read the full article below.  This is just a small taste of what members get in our monthly Taxation in Australia journal. With in-depth articles written by practitioners for practitioners, along with insights from our President, CEO and Tax Policy & Advocacy Team, and regular columns on tax news, tips and superannuation, Taxation in Australia is a trusted source of up-to-date information for anyone practising tax. #TheTaxInstitute #TTI #tax #thehomeoftax #jointhetaxconversation #membership #memberbenefits #TaxationinAustralia

Unnecessary harassment to the income tax assesses who even after winning the appeals fail to get their refunds because of wrong programming done at CPC. Recently, there has been a troubling trend among income tax payers who have successfully appealed their tax assessments and are entitled to refunds. Despite the appeal being adjudicated in the taxpayer's favor, they are facing significant difficulties in claiming their refunds. The issue arises when the assessee requests for the appeal effect to be given to them. While the department rightly calculates the refund amount, when the case is sent to the Centralized Processing Center (CPC) for processing, they inexplicably claim an interest under section 220, from the date of assessment to the date of appeal. This practice is not only infructuous but also goes against the law. The result of this erroneous calculation is that the entire refund amount is wrongly adjusted, causing unnecessary financial hardship to the taxpayer. What's more concerning is that even the assessing officer is unable to make the necessary corrections, leaving the assessee feeling helpless and frustrated. It is disheartening to see the income tax portal, which is supposed to facilitate smooth and efficient tax processes, becoming a source of harassment for taxpayers who are simply trying to claim what is rightfully theirs. This problem not only causes financial strain but also erodes trust in the tax system and undermines the taxpayer's confidence in the authorities. This situation highlights the urgent need for a review and revision of the procedures and policies governing the processing of tax refunds. The system should be streamlined to ensure that taxpayers are not subjected to unnecessary delays, errors, or unjust demands. As taxpayers, we rely on the tax system to be fair, efficient, and transparent. It is crucial that the authorities address these issues promptly and take concrete steps to rectify the flaws in the current system. 🤦♂️ #IncomeTax #TaxRefunds #TaxPayers #TaxSystem #TaxIssues #TaxPortal #TaxLaw #Taxation #Government #Finance #LegalIssues #TaxReform.

The recent Robillard v The King decision from the Tax Court of Canada offers vital lessons for anyone dealing with tax disputes. This case underscores the importance of understanding the burden of proof: taxpayers must present clear evidence, especially in claims involving family or non-arm's-length transactions. Lack of thorough documentation could make all the difference. Explore the case for takeaways relevant to tax professionals and self-employed taxpayers alike. https://hubs.li/Q02XMwM50

Credit to Jean Mangaluz - June 13, 2024 Marcos signs Real Property Valuation and Assessment Reform Act https://lnkd.in/gGYw7wpq President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. on Thursday signed into law a measure that, among others, sets a two-year amnesty on interests, surcharges, and penalties for unpaid real property tax. The Real Property Valuation and Assessment Reform Act (RPVARA) aims to standardize the valuation of real property in the country. “At the heart of this new law, we have adopted a strategy that will instill and encourage long-term and consistent tax compliance by providing a two-year amnesty on interests and penalties for taxpayers with unpaid real property tax,” said Marcos. “There is hereby granted a real property tax amnesty which shall cover penalties, surcharges, and interests from all unpaid real property taxes, including Special Education Fund, Idle Land Tax, and other special levy taxes prior to the effectivity of the RPVAR, once it is passed,” said the Bureau of Local Government Finance under the Department of Finance.

Recent California Legislation Will Have Taxpayers Considering New Tax Planning Strategies New budget legislation, SB 167, passed by the California Legislature on June 13th and signed into law by the governor on June 27, 2024 will have significant impacts on taxpayers by suspending net operating loss (NOL) deductions and limiting the utilization of credits from 2024 through 2026. Let me know if you have any questions! #taxcredit #taxcredit #taxincentive #taxincentive #californialegislation #taxplanning #nol #carryforward #refundabletax #SB167

The Australian Taxation Office has the powers of a dictator. Their mistreatment of taxpayers is on the record. There is a fix using the USA model that brings the rule of law to the way tax collectors behave. This is an issue of an extreme authoritarian institution embedded in our supposed ‘rule of law’ society. We must rebalance the power of the state over the individual. And this can be advanced in a practical way through reforming the ATO’s powers. 

*Understanding the New Amnesty Scheme under Section 128A of the CGST Act* The Government has taken a commendable step to reduce litigation and promote compliance by introducing Section 128A in the CGST Act. This amnesty scheme allows for a waiver of interest and penalty on tax demands for the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20, provided the full amount of tax demanded in notices, statements, or orders is paid. However, while this scheme provides significant relief, it comes with a key limitation that taxpayers should consider: 🔹 Waiver conditional on full tax payment Section 128A(1) clearly states that the waiver applies only if the entire amount of tax demanded is paid. For taxpayers with disputes involving multiple issues, this means they cannot selectively litigate specific issues while availing the scheme for others. Impact on Taxpayers This provision may deter taxpayers from utilizing the scheme in cases where they wish to challenge specific issues while settling others. It effectively requires taxpayers to choose between: 1. Litigating all issues: Incurring the cost of interest and penalties. 2. Settling all demands: Losing the chance to challenge certain disputes. *A Call for Administrative Reform* To address this, it is imperative for the Government to expedite the resolution of appeals, especially for cases involving multiple issues. By doing so, taxpayers can make informed decisions on opting for the amnesty scheme while preserving their rights to litigate unresolved issues. *Conclusion* While the intent behind Section 128A is to simplify compliance and reduce tax disputes, fine-tuning its implementation—such as allowing partial settlements or faster disposal of appeals—can enhance its effectiveness. Taxpayers must carefully evaluate their positions and consult professionals to make the most of this opportunity. Let’s work towards a tax regime that is not only compliant but also equitable for all stakeholders. #GST #Amnestyscheme #GSTUpdate #128A