Based over the information posting involving Comeco Company it may be noticed that the business engaged in transfer pricing scheme. The plan has been used don’t just by Comeco but also by other firms like Apple Enterprise, that’s at the moment facing a legal suit of 15 billion bucks (DeBacker, Heim, & Tran, 2015). Dependent around the news report regarding Comeco, it may possibly be observed the firm does not have full-time employees and has not actual operations in Swaziland as it claims. Besides, all the Uranium are obtained from Canada, and all the profits are channelled to other countries, which violate the prime reason establishing Comeco in Canada. For example, during the establishment, the Canadian government provide Comeco with several subsidies. Besides, the employees of Comeco were given a free insurance cover by the Canadian government. Besides, the education for the children of employees of Comeco Company was fully paid by the government to ensure that employees were motivated to work harder and increase the profitability of the organization. Despite all the subsidies and conducive working environment, the Canadian government offered that Comeco the organization decided to enter into schemes that aimed at depriving the Canadian government corporate income tax.
The ruling of this case between Comeco and Canadian Revenue Authority may be determined base over the principle of “stare decisis” which follow the precedence of other case laws that were decided before. One of the most appropriate case law for determining Comeco case on tax dodge is the case law of Gregory V. Helvering. The case involved Gregory Evelyn who owned all the shares of United Mortgage Organization in the United States. In 1928 September Evelyn formed, another firm called Averill Corp and transferred all the shares she owned in the United Mortgage Enterprise. After three days, she dissolved Averill Corp and transferred all the shares she held in this company to herself. Evelyn claimed that the commissioner of the U.S. Internal Revenue should only tax her for capital gained and not income tax. The court was held in favour of the taxpayer by the board of tax appeal. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue was not satisfied with the ruling made https://www.bestessaysforsale.net/term-paper-writing-service by the board of tax appeal and appealed the case to the United Supreme Court for further determination.
The results of Comeco case may be ruled based to the rulings made by the Supreme Court regarding the case of Gregory V. Helvering. The Supreme Court held the case in Gregory V. Helvering in favour of the Internal Revenue commissioner. The Court argued which the transaction did not lose its immunity due to the Mrs. Gregory desire to avoid tax payment. Secondly, the corporate readjustment and restructuring by Evelyn were a plan intended to dodge tax liability payment. Hence, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Internal Revenue commissioner.
Lawful Risk Management Strategies
Legal risk management strategies involve the process of identifying, evaluating the exposure to risk and finding the most appropriate measures that is often put forth to handle risk exposure via risk identification, analysis, and prioritization. Legal risk management is imperative in any corporation because it helps the organization to know how to avoid certain risk as well as how to manage the risk that cannot be avoided. Several authorized risk management strategies involve the following six processes namely, framework selection, seeking organization commitment, identification of lawful risk, evaluation of authorized risk, evaluation and finally communicating and advising. The first process of authorized risk management involves defining a framework, which defines the criteria via which lawful risk should meet. The framework also comprises of the objectives that need to be met. The objectives should be clear, practical, and adaptable. The second strategy involves seeking organization commitment and support. Without organization commitment regarding financial resource the process of lawful risk, management may not be successful. The support of both top and bottom level management staff should be sorted. Besides, the scope and type of authorized risk should be well defined. The third strategy involves identification of the lawful risk whereby the source of risk is identified (Power, 2004). After the source of legal risk has been identified, it is important to define actual and potential risk so that it becomes easy to handle it. The risk is then recorded in a register so that all attributes of the legal risk could be captured. The fourth strategy of authorized risk management focuses on analyzing the risk so the risk recorded in the register may be clearly understood. During the analysis control and assessment, the process takes place. The potential impact of the legal risk is assessed to know measures that might be put in place. The fifth strategy of lawful risk management involves legal risk evaluation. Under the evaluation, the process focuses on prioritizing lawful risk so that to find out organization tolerance to the lawful risk. The risk is treated differently depending on its severity. For example, the organisation may adopt risk avoidance techniques; it may also adopt risk removal or share the risk with insurance companies. The final strategy of authorized risk management involves communicating about the risk and advising around the most appropriate course of action that an organization should take (Wiengarten, Humphreys, Gimenez, & McIvor, 2016).
Why I choose this posting
The reasons why I choose this short article is because it captures all the requirements needed for successful completion of this paper. For example, it captures a legal issue covered in the global news article where Comeco Corporation is experiencing legal fit for failing to honour its corporate authorized obligation of paying the Canadian government corporate income tax. The company entered into a contract with the Swiss government to establish a subsidiary in Switzerland so that it could minimize the tax liability in Canada. Besides, the report is dependent on Saskatchewan as required in the instructions.
The examination of the Saskatchewan legal issue in the news short article involves Comeco Corporation; it can be scrutinized that the enterprise has actually been failing to abide per the Canadian Tax law. The case involves a authorized issue of whether Comeco Company is liable for evading tax by engaging in transfer pricing scheme by forming a subsidiary in Swaziland. The evaluation indicates the Canadian Revenue Authority has taken Comeco to the Federal court for a determination of justice. Besides, Comeco is struggling with pressure from the activist group, which demand it to pay taxes. Based mostly within the lawful investigation it may possibly be noticed that Comeco case may be decided using the precedence that was followed by the supreme court in the U.S in the case of Gregory V. Helvering where the court held in favour of the Revenue Commissioner demanding Gregory Evelyn to pay income tax.
CBC New. (2016). Cameco faces CRA in court over $2.2B tax bill: The Canadian Press. Retrieved :< http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cra-tax-cameco-1.3788766> DeBacker, J., Heim, B. T., & Tran, A. (2015). Importing corruption culture from overseas: Evidence from corporate tax evasion in the United States. Journal of Financial Economics, 117(1), 122-138. Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, 55 S. Ct. 266, 79 L. Ed. 596 (1935). Power, M. (2004). The risk management of everything: Rethinking the politics of uncertainty. Demos. Wiengarten, F., Humphreys, P., Gimenez, C., & McIvor, R. (2016). Risk, risk management practices, and the success of supply chain integration. International Journal of Production Economics, 171, 361-370.