ABC Ltd
Issue:
Is ABC Ltd is a resident of Australia for tax purpose.
The definition of “resident” in S6(1)of ITAA 1936 provides that a company is a resident of Australia where it is incorporated in Australia or, not being incorporated in Australia, where it carries on business in Australia and has either its central management and control in Australia or its voting power controlled by shareholders who are residents of Australia.
Incorporation Test
Under the first statutory test, if a company incorporated in Australia is automatically resident of Australia regardless of any other factors. In this case, ABC Ltd is a palm oil company incorporated in Hong Kong, not in Australia. Therefore, this statutory test doesn’t apply.
2. Central Management
Corporations functioning within the jurisdiction of the Australian Commonwealth are governed and regulated by the provisions of the Corporations Act, 2001. Common law principles developed through judicial
Australian Legal Case: The Mabo Case The Mabo case commenced in the late 70's about an Aborigine Eddie Mabo who fought for his land on Murray Island, part of the Torres Strait. The issue that started the court case was when Mr Mabo appealed for a permit from the Queensland Government to visit the island. His proposal was declineed so he was unable to return home to visit his homeland.
DuPont has been known for its low reliance on borrowings. In the 1970’s, the company had to assume a substantial portion of debt of Conoco, a newly acquired company. In 1983, the managers have to decide about the future optimal target debt ratio. Should the company continue to keep about 40% of its assets financed via debt or should it strive to lower its borrowings to 25%?
Given the situation, as manager of the office, Sara must talk to Nell and tell her that she can not allow her to stay doing her work because she is not fit to comply with them due to her drunken state. However, you must ask her to leave the office and return the next day when she is already sober to talk about the particular situation.
1. Diversity should provide greater alternatives and inputs into the decision process, but if diversity is blocked due to organizational infrastructures that do not allow the free flow of information, than the diversity goes unutilized. Johnson & Johnson (J&J) structured its company to insure the positive impact of diversity in regards to decision making through its creation of FrameworkS. Through Frameworks, the executive committee is partnered with a variety of managers from around the organization that concentrate on specific, unprogrammed organizational decisions. FrameworkS matches the problem with appropriate decision making method. In this approach, managers share the problem with others and engage the group in consensus to arrive at a final decision.
The Australian constitution is a national legal document, enacted by the British government on the 1st of January 1901 as a part of Australia’s federation, it can be very difficult to change yet it requires constant renewal to keep up to date with today's society. As the Australian states and territories have the ability to create their own laws, the Constitution is employed to regulate them. Any state or territory law that is viewed to be in direct defiance of the constitution can be repealed and then is reviewed and examined via the High Court of Australia. If the High Court rules that the state's law is unconstitutional it will then be voided. Due to the fact, the constitution overlooks all the laws carried out by the Australian states and
McOskar Enterprises, Inc. owns and manages a health and fitness center identified as “Curves for Women”. Tammey J. Anderson, the complainant, joined Curves on April 2, 2003. As part of the joining process Anderson signed a release of liability agreement. This agreement released Curves from any liabilities related to injuries that might be sustained by contributing in any activities or through the use of equipment. The agreement also stated that participants agreed to all risks of death or injury that could occur, Anderson read and signed the agreement of terms with Curves. After completing the liability agreement, Anderson began working out under the observation of a Curves’ trainer using the machines within the facility. During the workout Anderson notified the trainer that she began to feel pain in her neck, shoulder and arm, but finished her workout. She continued to feel the pain when she got home and pursued medical attention. As part of her prescribed medical treatment she was sent for a course a physical therapy. In June 2003 Anderson underwent a cervical discectomy, a procedure used to treat nerve or spinal cord compression. After her procedure Anderson sued Curves, claiming negligent acts during her workout. Anderson v. McOskar Enterprises, Inc., 712 NW 2d 796 (Minn. 2006).
This case was about a father by the name of Bob Latimer, this man had a daughter who was suffering with a disease called cerebral palsy. The disease was unfortunately entrenched with his daughter since her birth and was caused by brain damage. The disease made her immobile with the exception of the rare movements she showed through facial expressions or head movements. Twelve year old Tracey Latimer was in continuous pain every moment of her life and she was incapable of taking care of herself despite her age. She was bedridden and could not communicate with anyone in her family; she was more like a living corpse. Hoping only to better her condition, her family took her through several surgeries where some were successful but did not really benefit her in any way. Tracey had five to six seizures everyday and her condition would only get worse. All this was unbearable to her father Mr. Latimer like it would be to any loving father and it was then that he decided to end her pain and suffering. Latimer put Tracey into the cab of his truck and suffocated her. He did this by attaching a pipeline into the exhaust of the cab and this allowed carbon monoxide to enter the car which eventually leads to the painless death of his daughter. He was first convicted in 1994 of second degree murder with a life sentence term of 25 years and without parole for 10 years. Latimer then appealed his case to the Supreme Court and the previous decision was upheld. However, there was an error found in the procedure of the trial as some of the jury members were questioned on their beliefs in relation to the crime on the basis of religion, mercy killings, and etc. which then constituted the trial as unfair und...
Domicile test According to the common law definition of s6(1) ITAA 1936. Resident of Australia means, a person other than a company who resides in Australia and includes a person. Use the domicile test to discuss Peter and his wife to confirm residency. Domicile test means: A person who’s domicile is in Australia (in this case by choice) will be deemed to be a resident, unless the Commissioner is satisfied that his permanent place of abode is outside Australia.
The main obstacle arising during a rapid growth is maintaining a corporate culture. Due to this the company, which in this case is Kind LLC must find a way to implement ways to promote and maintain their culture. That culture is their emphasis in kindness in both the business and public setting. Kind must viciously strive to keep their employees connected to the corporate mission of kindness and engaged them as much as possible. This would in result lead to making great snack bars, offering “kind” services, giving back to the community, such as the current endeavors that the founder is pursuing, and last but not least creating a great environment for our stakeholders, such as our clients, employees, etc.
Australia has had one of the most outstanding economies of the world in recent years - competitive, open and vibrant. The nation’s high economic performance stems from effective economic management and ongoing structural reform. Australia has a competitive and dynamic private sector and a skilled, flexible workforce. It also has a comprehensive economic policy framework in place. The economy is globally competitive and remains an attractive destination for investment. Australia has a sound, stable and modern institutional structure that provides certainty to businesses. For long time, Australia is a stable democratic country with strong growth, low inflation and low interest rate.(Ning)
a company which is incorporated in Mauritius or has its Central Management and control in Mauritius
In company law, registered companies are complicated with the concepts of separate legal personality as the courts do not have a definite rule on when to lift the corporate veil. The concept of ‘Separate legal personality’ is created under the Companies Act 1862 and the significance of this concept is being recognized in the Companies Act 2006 nowadays. In order to avoid personal liability, it assures that individuals are sanctioned to incorporate companies to separate their business and personal affairs. The ‘separate legal personality’ principle was further reaffirmed in the courts through the decision of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd. , and it sets the rock in which our company law rests which stated that the legal entity distinct from its
The Principle of Separate Corporate Personality The principle of separate corporate personality has been firmly established in the common law since the decision in the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd[1], whereby a corporation has a separate legal personality, rights and obligations totally distinct from those of its shareholders. Legislation and courts nevertheless sometimes "pierce the corporate veil" so as to hold the shareholders personally liable for the liabilities of the corporation. Courts may also "lift the corporate veil", in the conflict of laws in order to determine who actually controls the corporation, and thus to ascertain the corporation's true contacts, and closest and most real connection. Throughout the course of this assignment I will begin by explaining the concept of legal personality and describe the veil of incorporation. I will give examples of when the veil of incorporation can be lifted by the courts and statuary provisions such as s.24 CA 1985 and incorporate the varying views of judges as to when the veil can be lifted.
According to Corporation Act 2001 s124(1), it illustrates that ‘’A company has the legal capacity and powers of an individual both in and outside the jurisdiction” . As it were, company as a legal individual must be freely with all its capital contribution shall embrace liability for its legal actions and obligations of the company’s shareholders is limited to its investment to the company. This ‘separate legal entity’ principle was established in the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1987] as company was held to have conducted the business as a legal person and separate from its members. It demonstrated that the debt of company is belonged to the company but not to the shareholders. Shareholders have only right to participate in managing but not in sharing the company property. Besides ,the Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] demonstrates that the distinction between the shareholders and company assets. It means that even Mr Macaura owned almost all the shares in the company, he had no insurable interest in the company’s asset. The other recent case is the Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd [1961] which illustrates that the distinct legal entities between employee ad director allows Mr.Lee function in dual capacities. It resulted that the corporation can contract with the controlling member of the corporation.