The ongoing drama around sales and use taxes continues. Despite the fact that forty-one states, two
U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia joined the amicus brief
supporting South Dakota’s position before the Supreme Court and stating
otherwise, the State of California is now retroactively seeking sales tax from
out-of-state online merchants, going back as far as 2012.
How is this possible? Prior to Wayfair, there
were many other kinds of nexus statutes on the books of states that businesses
had to comply with, e.g., “click-thru nexus”, “cookie nexus”, “affiliate
nexus”, “marketplace nexus”, etc. These nexus rules were variations on the
physical presence test under Quill. However, post-Wayfair, those
laws are still on the books and so far, remain effective for current as well as
past years. And there are two risks here. .The first risk is that these rules might have
applied to the business in the past (whether it knew it, should have known it
or not) and so in its zeal t…
Now what about continental Europe?
Tax residency is more than the 183 day rule and specific steps and
conditions are required for tax non-residency.
Failure to adhere to these rules has meant that they owe money in back
taxes and face penalties and interest. I
have seen it referred to as the “nomad tax trap”
One nomad told me that the EU has no authority…
Sales and use taxes are "trust fund taxes," or taxes that the collector holds "in trust" for the state until remittance. These taxes are imposed not on the seller but on the purchaser or user. As such, the laws passed in the wake of Wayfair do not increase tax liability for sellers but allow states to shift the collection and remittance obligation from the customer to the seller. Sales-and-use-tax obligations, however, do not necessarily stop at the entity level, so even conducting business as a corporation does not necessarily protect owners from liability. This realization can come as a shock to those who find themselves saddled with the…
1. An individual who is a resident of Singapore for tax purposes is taxable on his income derived from Singapore as well as income from overseas remitted to Singapore. A non-resident individual is taxable on his income derived from Singapore only.
2. A Singaporean who goes on his own or is sent by his employer to work overseas is treated as a tax resident during the period of his overseas employment because he intends to return to Singapore. Consequently, he is taxed in Singapore on that portion of his overseas employment income which he remits to Singapore. Should his overseas employment be already taxed there, credit for the foreign tax is allowed if the country he works in has a tax treaty with Singapore or is one of the countries where credit for foreign tax is allowed without a tax treaty.
3. To remove any disincentive for Singaporeans to work abroad, IRAS has, as an administrative practice, been allowing individual taxpayers the choice o…
I frequently have discussions on tax evasion vs tax avoidance. So many people think that any mention of using different jurisdictions, offshore accounts etc seems "suspicious".
There is tax avoidance or tax planning which is completely legal.
But tax evasion is illegal.
Within recent time however, there are cases where avoidance is declared as illegal. How does this work? Well taxation has been receiving much attention and this means that the debate has been an evolving one. It is impossible to discuss this area in Common Law jurisdictions without reference to case law. Impossible. Simply reviewing code sections is insufficient.
In the UK, we go back to 1936 where there was the famous Duke of Westminster’s case (1936) AC 1, where Lord Tomlin proclaimed: Every man is entitled, if he can, to order his affairs so as that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, how…