Global ETD Search

1	L'imposition des bénéfices des entreprises en France et au Sénégal / Companies benefits taxes in France & Senegal Ba, Elhadji Cheikh Gueye 24 November 2017 (has links) Résumé : L’imposition des bénéfices des entreprises en France et au SénégalL’objectif de toute politique fiscale est de répondre à des préoccupations économiques et sociales. Le phénomène de la mondialisation des échanges a très rapidement modifié les relations entre les systèmes fiscaux nationaux. Aujourd’hui avec l’interpénétration des économies, les États ne peuvent plus ignorer la nécessité d’agir de concert vers une convergence des systèmes fiscaux. Mais la France et le Sénégal n’ont pas attendu l’apparition du phénomène de la mondialisation pour se rapprocher juridiquement et fiscalement. En effet, l’histoire de la colonisation ne s’est pas construite en dehors de la trajectoire fiscale. Ressource d’enrôlement, de contrôle des indigènes, la fiscalité a été le canal historique de l’imposition et de légitimation des ordres coloniaux. S’il existe des similitudes et des différences dans l’imposition des bénéfices des entreprises entre les deux États, c’est tantôt dû à l’héritage colonial, dans ce cas, le mimétisme fiscal a un sens, tantôt dû à la protection jalouse de leur souveraineté, dans ce cas chaque État cherche à spécifier sa législation fiscale et une dissociation nouvelle s’impose. Contrairement au système dit de la mondialité pratiquée par la majorité des pays, la France et le Sénégal font figure d’exception en choisissant d’imposer leurs entreprises selon le principe de territorialité. Ils appliquent au traitement fiscal des résultats de leurs entreprises un principe identique d’imposition des bénéfices aux plans des règles d’assiette, de liquidation et de recouvrement. Toutefois, il reste possible de mettre en valeur d’une part, les différences au niveau des assiettes et des recettes fiscales, d’autre part la concurrence des mesures fiscales incitatives en droit national et des mesures préventives prise en droit conventionnel afin d’éliminer les doubles impositions.Mots clés : Impôt, Entreprise, Territorialité, Convention fiscale. / Summary: Companies benefits taxes in France & Senegal The aim of all fiscal policy is to answer to economic and social concerns. Relationships between national fiscal systems were very quickly modified by the exchanges globalization phenomenon. Today, with economies interdependence, States can't ignore the urgent necessity to harmonise fiscal systems anymore. Still, France & Senegal didn't wait for this phenomenon to converge their systems in a legal and fiscal way. Indeed, History of colonization didn't made itself without any fiscality. Enrollment ressources, control of the indigenous, fiscality was the historical channel that imposed and legitimated colonial orders. Similarities and differences in companies benefits imposition remains between the two States. Sometimes, it's because of the colonial legacy. In that particular case, fiscal mimesis makes sense. In an other hand, due to the jealous protection of their sovereignty, each State wants to specify its fiscal legislation; a new dissociation appears. Unlike the so called Mondiality system, used by the majority of the countries, France & Senegal make an exception by deciding to tax their companies on the territoriality principle. They apply an identical principle to the fiscal treatment of the companies results, in terms of benefits taxes, collection, fiscal base, and liquidation. However, it remains possible to diaplay differences between fiscal bases, and on the other hand the competition of incentives fiscal measures in national law and the preventive measures took in conventional law in order to eliminate double taxes.Keywords: Tax, Company, Territoriality, Tax Convention. Impôt Bénéfices Entreprises Territorialité Convention Doubles impositions Tax Benefits Company Territoriality Convention Double taxes 340
2	Contribution à l'étude des redevances au Mexique / User fees and fees for the special use or exploitation of the public domain : the case of Mexico Rodriguez Arguijo, Gabriela 06 December 2016 (has links) Lors de ces dernières décennies, la recherche de nouveaux instruments générant des recettes publiques est apparue comme un phénomène commun dans des Etats dont les conditions politiques, juridiques et économiques diffèrent pourtant sensiblement. De manière générale, les difficultés financières rencontrées par les États ont favorisé le développement de la parafiscalité mais aussi un certain essor de l’utilisation d’instruments d’obtention de recettes publiques liés au principe du bénéfice. Parmi ces instruments se trouvent les redevances, qui procurent un montant non négligeable de recettes publiques aux États à l’heure actuelle.A partir les années 80, les lois mexicaines présentent une définition de la redevance qui intègre dans son sein les redevances pour service rendu et les redevances domaniales, en leur attribuant un caractère fiscal. Après trois décennies, le régime juridique des redevances dans ce pays se caractérise par un manque considérable de lisibilité. Une technique normative déficiente et l’absence d’un effort de systématisation tant dans les lois qui les établissent que dans la jurisprudence rendent difficile de cerner les redevances comme un tout harmonieux et cohérent.Face à cette problématique, notre thèse a pour objectif de contribuer à l’étude de la redevance en droit mexicain. Dans une Première Partie, nous identifions les éléments qui suggèrent une affirmation progressive de la redevance en tant que catégorie de ressources publiques possédant une logique et un fonctionnement propres. Dans une Deuxième Partie, nous analysons les spécificités des deux grandes modalités de redevance. / Over the past decades, in a context of budgetary pressure, governments turned to fees imposed on those that receive a specific benefit. Since the collection of public service fees increased in the last years, they constitute an important source of revenue for governments. This phenomenon is widespread in many countries, regardless of their economic, political, or legal framework.In Mexico, user fees and fees for the special use or exploitation of the public domain, are levied by both federal and local governments. Nevertheless, since the 1980’s these fees are considered as mandatory levies in this country. Currently, federal and local laws need to be amended in order to establish clearly these fees. Indeed, since several fees exist in Mexican law, it is necessary to investigate if user fees and fees for the special use or exploitation of the public domain belong to the same category. Also, it is necessary to distinguish them from taxes. This thesis aims to contribute to the understanding of fees in Mexican law. First, it is analyzed the definition and legal nature of such fees as well as the constitutional principles that are applied. Second, it is provided an overview of the main characteristics of both user fees and fees for the special use or exploitation of the public domain at federal and local level. Redevances Service rendu Domaine public Services publics Principe du bénéfice Impositions Contrepartie directe Public service Public domain Mexican law 343.03
3	Vztahy mezi staroseverskými adjektivními výpůjčkami a jejich staroanglickými protějšky ve střední angličtině / Relationships between Old Norse adjectival borrowings and their Old English counterparts in Middle English Müllerová, Světlana January 2020 (has links) CHARLES UNIVERSITY - FACULTY OF ARTS DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND ELT METHODOLOGY Relationships between the borrowed Old Norse adjectives in English and their Old English counterparts MA THESIS Supervisor: prof. PhDr. Jan Čermák, CSc. Author: Světlana Müllerová Abstract: The aim of this MA thesis is to examine the relationship between six word pairs, each comprising an Old Norse adjectival borrowing in Middle English and its Old English counterpart along with its Middle English reflex for further reference. The inquiry into their relationship involves an analysis of: their (i) formal aspects, (ii) syntactic properties, (iii) semantic fields and (iv) external factors possibly contributing to their obsolescence or survival, such as the restriction to certain text types or geographic localization, as suggested by the individual linguistic profiles in the Linguistic Atlas of Early Middle English and Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English. The description of individual semantic fields of the given words is based on their semantic classification within the Historical Thesaurus of English. This analysis is based on the occurrences of the individual words as taken from the dictionaries Middle English Dictionary and Dictionary of Old English, and related corpora Dictionary of Old English Corpus and...
4	A Pragmatic Standard of Legal Validity Tyler, John 2012 May 1900 (has links) American jurisprudence currently applies two incompatible validity standards to determine which laws are enforceable. The natural law tradition evaluates validity by an uncertain standard of divine law, and its methodology relies on contradictory views of human reason. Legal positivism, on the other hand, relies on a methodology that commits the analytic fallacy, separates law from its application, and produces an incomplete model of law. These incompatible standards have created a schism in American jurisprudence that impairs the delivery of justice. This dissertation therefore formulates a new standard for legal validity. This new standard rejects the uncertainties and inconsistencies inherent in natural law theory. It also rejects the narrow linguistic methodology of legal positivism. In their stead, this dissertation adopts a pragmatic methodology that develops a standard for legal validity based on actual legal experience. This approach focuses on the operations of law and its effects upon ongoing human activities, and it evaluates legal principles by applying the experimental method to the social consequences they produce. Because legal history provides a long record of past experimentation with legal principles, legal history is an essential feature of this method. This new validity standard contains three principles. The principle of reason requires legal systems to respect every subject as a rational creature with a free will. The principle of reason also requires procedural due process to protect against the punishment of the innocent and the tyranny of the majority. Legal systems that respect their subjects' status as rational creatures with free wills permit their subjects to orient their own behavior. The principle of reason therefore requires substantive due process to ensure that laws provide dependable guideposts to individuals in orienting their behavior. The principle of consent recognizes that the legitimacy of law derives from the consent of those subject to its power. Common law custom, the doctrine of stare decisis, and legislation sanctioned by the subjects' legitimate representatives all evidence consent. The principle of autonomy establishes the authority of law. Laws must wield supremacy over political rulers, and political rulers must be subject to the same laws as other citizens. Political rulers may not arbitrarily alter the law to accord to their will. Legal history demonstrates that, in the absence of a validity standard based on these principles, legal systems will not treat their subjects as ends in themselves. They will inevitably treat their subjects as mere means to other ends. Once laws do this, men have no rest from evil. natural law theory legal positivism HLA Hart William Blackstone John Locke Jeremy Bentham John Austin Galileo Socrates Trotsky Athens Soviet law Stuart dynasty John Dewey Dewey Commission Sidney Hook Congregation of the Holy Office Galileo Affair trial of Socrates Moscow Trials trial of Galileo heresy trial of Trotsky reason autonomy consent philosophy of law pragmatism Kant Inquisition ostracism Anaxagoras Protagoras Alcibiades Arginusae Pericles Peloponnesian War Solon Ephialtes Apology Plato Herodotus Xenophon Plutarch Roscoe Pound common law Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. The Common Law The Path of the Law Learned Hand Christopher Columbus Langdell Ronald Dworkin Lon Fuller Lenin Stalin King Rex Sergei Kirov Permanent Revolution Socialism in One Country Great Terror Dekulakization Holomodor Terror Famine Italian positivist school Harold J. Berman Gustav Radbruch Ramon Mercader Trotsky assassination Marteman Ryutin Old Bolsheviks Genrikh Yagoda Pope Urban VIII Walter Duranty Harold Denny New York Times Joseph E. Davies Mission to Moscow New Republic John F. Finerty Lev Sedov Military Collegium Vasili Ulrikh Gaspare Borgia Cardinal Robert Bellarmine Pericles Father Commissary Michelangelo Segizzi Cardinal Francesco Barberini Cardinal Maffeo Barberini Siderius Nuncius Starry Messenger Accademia dei Lincei Letters on Sunspots Friar Tommaso Caccini Niccolo Lorini Commentaries on the Laws of England Second Treatise on Civil Government Henry de Bracton Sir Edward Coke Sir John Fortescue Matthew Hale Ranulf de Glanvil James I Charles I James II Charles II ship money forest fines distraint of knighthood impositions dispensing power royal prerogative Duke of Buckingham Oliver Cromwell Bishops Wars William Prynne Great Migration Declaration of Indulgence Settlement Act Test Act Protectorate Clarendon Code Quaker Act William and Mary English Civil War Puritan Revolution Glorious Revolution Thirty Years' War Earl of Shaftesbuty William Laud Historiomatrix Long Parliament Rump Parliament Barebones Parliament sociological jurisprudence Red Terror war communism New Economic Policy 1926 Criminal Code Kirov Amendments judicial discretion semantic sting The Concept of Law Fragments on Government The Province of Jurisprudence Determined A Fragment on Government Anarchical Fallacies primary rules secondary rules rule of recognition legal validity internal point of view external point of view law as prediction the bad man perspective on law life of the law page of history Basilikon Doron Trew Law of Free Monarchies

1

Page generated in 0.1065 seconds