The objective of this study is to test whether the Affordable Care Act will have an effect on the professional tax preparation industry of Kingsport, Tennessee. To accomplish this objective, the researcher collected surveys concerning taxpayers’ initial reaction to the realization that the law affects their 1040. A two proportion test for equality was performed and failed to reject the idea that the ACA will have an effect on the tax preparation industry of Kingsport. Because this study failed to prove that the change in legislation causes a jump in clientele for the professional tax preparation market, the fight for market share falls to marketers. They will decide who will benefit from this landmark piece of legislation.

A questão da excessiva carga tributária incidente sobre a economia brasileira tem estado no foco das discussões no cenário político e social, e por sua vez, não deixa de ser objeto de pesquisa na área acadêmica, sendo a Teoria da Tributação Ótima, um tema recorrente nos mais diversos cenários, especialmente, entre economistas, juristas e cientistas políticos. A teoria da tributação ótima tem como base teórica, o estudo do delineamento de um sistema tributário ideal (tax design), objetivando a análise de como determinada receita tributária pode ser arrecadada pelo governo ao menor custo para a sociedade, em termos de perda de eficiência. Entretanto, a Teoria da Tributação Ótima apresenta como o seu desafio, a compatibilização entre o critério da eficiência e o da capacidade contributiva, e consciente da importância do tema para a instituição de políticas tributárias, emergimos-nos nesta pesquisa que deu nascimento a presente dissertação. / The excessive tax burdens issue incident on the Brazilian economy has been the focus of discussion in the political and social scene, and it is still subject of research in the academic area, being the Optimal Tax Theory, a recurring theme in various scenarios, especially among economists, lawyers and political scientists. The tax authorities represented by the government, undeniably has the need to raise taxes to achieve your social objectives, however, the tax collection activity can lead to distortions in the economy, particularly on the economic decisions of agents, making mister find a better solution to mitigate such undesired effects on the productive economy, through the design of an ideal tax system is emerging - thus the Optimal Tax Theory. The Optimal Tax Theory has as its theoretical basis, the study of the design of an optimal tax system (tax design) , aiming at the analysis of how certain tax revenue can be collected by the government at minimum cost to society, reaching certain distributional goals a lower cost in terms of loss of efficiency. However, the Theory of Taxation Great features as its challenge to reconcile the efficiency criterion and the ability to pay, and we are aware of the economic and political \"mainstream\" that is the theme symbolizes for imposition of tax policies, we emerge in this study - that gave birth to this thesis.

La procédure de l’abus de droit fiscal est une « épée de Damoclès » pour tout contribuable un peu tropimaginatif dans la gestion de son patrimoine privé. Optimiser, oui! Mais sans excès. L’administration fiscaleveille au grain. Dès lors qu’un montage lui paraît artificiel, elle met en oeuvre son arme procédurale pour laquelleelle supporte la charge de la preuve, et peut sanctionner les opérations fictives ou frauduleuses.L’étude de l’optimisation fiscale du patrimoine privé peut concerner tant la transmission que ladétention du patrimoine privé. S'agissant de la transmission de leur patrimoine, les contribuables cherchent àoptimiser la fiscalité des plus-values (pour éluder leur régime ou, au contraire, en bénéficier), comme les droitsde mutation (pour éluder leur application ou pour bénéficier des droits de mutation à titre onéreux en lieu etplace des droits de mutation à titre gratuit). S'agissant de la détention du patrimoine, c’est l’imposition desrevenus (tant en droit interne qu’en droit international) comme l’impôt de solidarité sur la fortune qui font l’objetd’une recherche d’optimisation fiscale.Quelle que soit l’imposition en cause, la volonté de maîtriser sa charge fiscale n’est pas sans risque pourle contribuable. Ce dernier doit prendre des précautions et respecter les critères légaux et jurisprudentiels afind’éviter la mise en oeuvre de la procédure de l’abus de droit. La citation de Maurice COZIAN résumeparfaitement ce risque fiscal : « la procédure de l’abus de droit constitue une ʺépée de Damoclèsʺ suspendue audessusde la tête des contribuables trop habiles ; s’ils dépassent certaines bornes, l’épée se détache et c’est lecataclysme fiscal ». / The procedure of tax law abuse is a « sword of Damoclès » for any taxpayer too imaginative in themanagment of his personal property. Optimization, Yes ! But without excess. Tax authorities keep a weather eyeopen. From the moment a financing process seems artificial, they implement their procedural weapon for whichthey bear the burden of proof, and can punish fictitious or fraudulent transactions.The study of the personal property tax optimization can cover both the transmission and the holding ofpersonal property. Regarding the transmission of their private assets, taxpayers seek to optimize the taxation ofcapital gains (to elude their tax regime or, conversely, to benefit from it), such as transfer taxes (to elude theirimplementation or to take advantage of the transfer taxes subject to payment rather than those free of charge). Asfor the holding of assets, it is the taxation of income (both national or international law), as well as the wealth taxthat are being sought to optimize taxation.Wathever the taxation, the wish to control one’s tax burden is not without risks for the taxpayer. Hemust take precautions and comply witht legal and jurisprudential criteria to avoid the implementation of theprocedure of law abuse. Maurice COZIAN’s quotation perfectly sums up this tax risk : « the procedure of taxlaw abuse is a « sword of Damoclès » hanging over the heads of all too cunning taxpayers ; if they go too far,the sword breacks off, and it ends up in the tax cataclysm ».

This study explores the impact of complexity upon unintentional non-compliance behaviour for personal taxpayers in Australia. This area of research did not appear to have been previously studied in an Australian context and in this respect, the study represents an original contribution. While studies have been conducted both in Australia and overseas, they have generally been directed at other types of compliance behaviour and tend to be inconclusive in their findings. According to the compliance literature, there appeared to be little consensus of opinion on the factors that determined behaviour and appropriate research methods. It emerged that more narrowly-defined studies with stronger research methods offered potential for furthering knowledge in this field. Thus the study focused on one behavioural outcome and one type of taxpayer, using a multi-paradigm research method. Unintentional non-compliance, as an outcome, was selected as it appeared to hold promise for improvements in overall compliance to be readily made, provided its causes were understood. Complexity was considered to be the most likely cause of unintentional non-compliance, and those who prepared their own income tax return, the group likely to be most affected. The study used both a quantitative and qualitative component from which a number of convergent results emerged. These included that the major cause of complexity was the ambiguity of tax laws and the volume of explanatory material required. Further, personal taxpayers were committed to compliance even though they regarded the system as less than fair. Together, complexity and commitment to compliance caused taxpayers to experience unnecessary compliance costs. Where taxpayers completed their own return, complexity resulted in a high level of errors that generally resulted in an overstatement of tax liability. In addition, some taxpayers chose to be over-compliant as a means of dealing with complexity and commitment. It was concluded that complexity compromised the integrity of the Australian income tax system by imposing an unfair burden on personal taxpayers in respect of both tax paid and compliance costs incurred. However, there appeared to be little, if any, financial incentive for the tax authority to address the causes of complexity for personal taxpayers.

<p>The purpose of the thesis is to illustrate how payments of damages between companies are treated from a taxation point of view, and to analyse, in a tax law perspective, the consequences that follow the transactions. Furthermore, a comparison is made between damages and transactions similar to damages, such as amicable settlements and fines between companies, to ascertain whether they are treated similar. Finally, there is an analysis of the consequences of taxation of insurances, both premiums and compensations, followed by a comparison with the consequences of taxation of damages.</p>

<p>The legal situation of companies costs for investing in computer software in an income tax law perspective is described by a tax law guidance that generelly acount these costs according the principles of research and development. If there is any reason to classify the costs differently, it could mean that immediate deduction not will be allowed. For this reason it is important to establish what the legal situation would be in a more nuanced tax law classification. The tax law categories that will be analysed in the thesis are research and development, inventories, intangible assets, stocks and ongoing projects. The purpose of this thesis is mainly to give examples of what such an income tax law classification can look like.While dealing with the problems of classifying the costs some situations of competition will occure. My conclusion is that it is important to bring out the multiplicity and the comlpexity that marks the legal situation in question. In each specific case yet some situations can occure that I haven’t been close to border on. The income tax law classification of companies costs in computer software shall be descided with the very purpose of the specific investment in mind and as only parameter.</p>

The purpose of the thesis is to illustrate how payments of damages between companies are treated from a taxation point of view, and to analyse, in a tax law perspective, the consequences that follow the transactions. Furthermore, a comparison is made between damages and transactions similar to damages, such as amicable settlements and fines between companies, to ascertain whether they are treated similar. Finally, there is an analysis of the consequences of taxation of insurances, both premiums and compensations, followed by a comparison with the consequences of taxation of damages.

The legal situation of companies costs for investing in computer software in an income tax law perspective is described by a tax law guidance that generelly acount these costs according the principles of research and development. If there is any reason to classify the costs differently, it could mean that immediate deduction not will be allowed. For this reason it is important to establish what the legal situation would be in a more nuanced tax law classification. The tax law categories that will be analysed in the thesis are research and development, inventories, intangible assets, stocks and ongoing projects. The purpose of this thesis is mainly to give examples of what such an income tax law classification can look like.While dealing with the problems of classifying the costs some situations of competition will occure. My conclusion is that it is important to bring out the multiplicity and the comlpexity that marks the legal situation in question. In each specific case yet some situations can occure that I haven’t been close to border on. The income tax law classification of companies costs in computer software shall be descided with the very purpose of the specific investment in mind and as only parameter.

The Savings Directive will enter in to force 1st of July 2005, after years of discussions about it. The Directive has caused some controversy and several proposals have been rejected. The Savings Directive means that an individual who recieves savings income in the form of interest payment from another Member State will be taxed in his or hers State of residence. This will be achieved by an automatic exchange of information be-tween the Member States, concerning interest payments on savings. Some countries have opted out of the information exchange and will instead levy a withholding tax during a transitional period. The free movement of capital became fully liberalized when articles 1 and 4 in Directive 88/361/EEC was given direct effect. Later the main provisions from that Directive were implemented in the EC Treaty. All restrictions on the free movement of capital are prohibited, according to article 56 EC. Exceptions to this free movement can be found in article 58 EC. One example of a possible justification is the right for Member States to apply tax law which distinguish between taxpayers who are not in the same situation with regard to their residence or with regard to the place where their capital is invested. Certain fundamental principles have to be complied with, foremost the Principle of Proportionality and the Principle of Legal Certainty, to be able to justify a restriction on the free movement of capital. If the Savings Directive is in breach of the free movement of capital according to article 56-60 EC, is analysed in this thesis. It is discussed whether the Directive constitutes a restriction and in that case which possible justifications there are. Our conclusion is that the Savings Directive constitutes a restriction, in so far that it will likely dissuade residents from placing their capital in another Member State, because they will be taxed in their State of residence anyhow. However, this restriction is possible to justify according to article 58 (1) (b) EC. Therefore, the Savings Directive is not in breach of the free movement of capital. / Sparandedirektivet träder i kraft 1 juli 2005, efter många års diskussioner kring det och efter att flera förslag har röstats ner. Sparandedirektivet innebär att en individ från en Medlemsstat som mottager ränteinkomst härrörande från sparande i ett annat Medlems land blir beskattad i Medlemsstaten där han eller hon bor. Detta skall ske genom automatiskt utbyte av information rörande ränteinkomster på besparingar mellan Medlemsstaterna. Några länder har fått dispans från informations utbytet under en viss tid och kommer då istället att påföra en källskatt. Den fria rörligheten av kapital blev liberaliserad fullt ut i och med att artiklarna 1 och 4 i Direktiv 88/361/EEC gavs direkt effekt. Huvudbestämmelserna från det direktivet blev senare implementerade i EG fördraget. Enligt artikel 56 EG är alla restriktioner på fri rörlighet av kapital förbjudna. I artikel 58 EG hittas dock undantag till denna fria rörlighet. Ett exempel på en möjlig rättfärdigande grund för en restriktion är möjligheten för Medlemsstater att behandla individer skattemässigt olika beroende på var de är bosatta och beroende på var kapitalet är placerat. För att kunna rättfärdiga en restriktion på den fria rörligheten av kapital måste också vissa grundläggande principer följas, framförallt proportionalitetsprincipen och principen om rättssäkerhet. Denna uppsats utreder om Sparandedirektivet bryter mot den fria rörligheten av kapital uppställd i artiklarna 56-60 EG, genom att analysera om Direktivet utgör en restriktion och i så fall vilka rättfärdigandegrunder som är möjliga att använda. Slutsatsen, baserat på vår utredning, blir att Sparandedirektivet utgör en restriktion på den fria rörligheten av kapital, eftersom det troligtvis kommer att avskräcka personer från att placera besparingar utomlands, då de kommer att bli beskattade i den stat de bor i alla fall. Restriktionen är dock möjlig att rättfärdiga genom 58 (1) (b) EG. Därför bryter Sparandedirektivet inte mot fri rörlighet av kapital.

Abstract The freedom of establishment in Articles 43 and 48 EC is a fundamental freedom within the EU meaning that companies are free to set up secondary establishments in any other Member State. The freedom of establishment is an important means to achieve the com-pletion of the internal market and therefore it is important that this freedom is protected. Member States are obliged to legislate in accordance with the objectives of the fundamental freedoms, still Member States are restricting Articles 43 and 48 EC by applying discrimina-tory national legislation regarding direct taxation. In the Cadbury Schweppes judgment from September 2006 the ECJ found the British CFC legislation to be contrary to Community law. The purpose of CFC legislation is to prevent tax avoidance by conferring additional tax upon companies having subsidiaries in low tax states. According to the judgment in Cadbury Schweppes, if the CFC rules are too general in its application they are violating the freedom of establishment. Hence, the CFC legislation must be aimed specifically at “wholly artificial arrangements” aimed at circumventing national tax normally payable. Therefore it is of importance, in the context of applying CFC rules, to clarify the difference between use and abuse of freedom of establishment. It is also important to note that the CFC rules ap-ply even when a subsidiary is established outside the EU. The concept of abuse of Community law has been developed through case law and prohib-its companies to improperly use the provisions of Community law in order to circumvent national legislation. Even if an establishment in another State is made to avoid tax in the State of origin, it is not necessarily abuse of the freedom of establishment since companies are allowed to choose to establish subsidiaries in the Member States with least restrictive rules. The ECJ stated that establishing subsidiaries with the sole purpose to benefit from the lower tax regime do not constitute an abuse of the freedom of establishment as long as the subsidiaries pursue genuine economic activity. The criteria for what is regarded as eco-nomic activity has been discussed in both value added tax and direct tax cases. The re-quirements so far is that the subsidiary established has to be physically present in the host State on a durable basis and have staff and equipment to a certain degree. The ECJ has as-sessed the criteria similarly in value added tax and direct tax cases and stated that the activ-ity has to be considered per se and without regard to its purpose or result. The activity also has to be based on objective factors and be ascertainable by third parties. The Cadbury Schweppes case is the first case in the area of CFC legislation and the Court has provided little guidance regarding what constitutes a “wholly artificial arrangement”. As a consequence of this judgement some Member States have already changed their CFC legis-lation to comply with Community law. Nevertheless, there are cases pending before the ECJ that are further questioning the application of CFC rules and how to define a “wholly artificial arrangement”. The judgement of these cases may result in more changes in the na-tional legislation of the Member States. The future development of the difference between use and abuse of freedom of establishment is important for the protection of the principle of legal certainty. A clarification of what constitutes a “wholly artificial arrangement” will improve the foreseeability for companies and their cross-border transactions will be more efficient. / Sammanfattning Etableringsfriheten i artiklarna 43 och 48 EG är en av de grundläggande friheterna inom EU som innebär att företag är fria att etablera dotterbolag i andra medlemsländer. Etable-ringsfriheten är ett viktigt medel för att uppnå målen med den gemensamma marknaden och därför är det viktigt att denna frihet respekteras. Medlemsländerna är skyldiga att lag-stifta i ljuset av de grundläggande friheterna, trots det finns diskriminerande skattelagstift-ning som strider mot artiklarna 43 och 48 EG. I Cadbury Schweppes domen från september 2006 fann EG-domstolen att de brittiska CFC reglerna strider mot gemenskapsrätten. Syf-tet med CFC regler är att förhindra skatteundandragande genom att löpande beskatta in-komster från dotterbolag etablerade i lågbeskattade länder. CFC regler som tillämpas gene-rellt är enligt Cadbury Schweppes domen i strid med etableringsfriheten. Därmed måste CFC reglerna tillämpas specifikt på ”konstlade upplägg” som har som enda syfte att undvika na-tionell skatt. Det är därför viktigt att klargöra skillnaden mellan bruk och missbruk av eta-bleringsfriheten. I detta sammanhang är det viktigt att poängtera att CFC reglerna är till-lämpliga även på dotterbolag som är etablerade i ett icke-medlemsland. Konceptet om missbrukande av EG-rätten har utvecklats i praxis och förbjuder företag att missbruka bestämmelserna i gemenskapsrätten för att kringgå nationell lagstiftning. Även om ett dotterbolag har etablerats i ett medlemsland enbart för att utnyttja den låga skatteni-vån är det nödvändigtvis inte missbruk av etableringsfriheten eftersom företag har rätt att etablera dotterbolag i det land som är mest fördelaktigt ur skattehänseende. EG-domstolen har fastställt att etablering av dotterbolag enbart för att utnyttja en mer fördelaktig skattere-gim inte utgör missbruk av etableringsfriheten om dotterbolaget bedriver verklig ekono-misk verksamhet. Kriterierna för vad som anses utgöra verklig ekonomisk verksamhet har diskuterats i såväl mervärdesskatterättsliga som företagsskatterättsliga mål. Hittills uppställ-da krav är att det etablerade dotterbolaget måste vara varaktigt fysiskt närvarande i värdsta-ten samt till en viss grad ha personal och utrustning så att tredje part kan förvissa sig om dess ekonomiska verksamhet. Utvärderingen av den ekonomiska verksamheten måste ske självständigt utan hänsyn till dess syfte och resultat. Cadbury Schweppes är det första målet angående CFC lagstiftning och EG-domstolen har endast tillhandahållit begränsad vägledning om vad som utgör ett ”konstlat upplägg”. Som en konsekvens av denna dom har några medlemsländer redan ändrat sin CFC lagstiftning så att den överensstämmer med EG-rätten. Icke desto mindre finns det en del oavgjorda mål som ytterligare ifrågasätter CFC reglernas tillämpning och definitionen av ”konstlade upplägg”. Avgöranden i dessa mål skulle kunna resultera i att medlemsländerna måste göra ytterligare ändringar i sin lagstiftning. Den framtida utvecklingen av vad som är skillnaden mellan bruk och missbruk av etableringsfriheten är viktig för rättssäkerheten. Ett klargö-rande om vad som utgör ett ”konstlat upplägg” kommer att öka förutsebarheten för före-tag vilket leder till en effektivisering av deras gränsöverskridande transaktioner.