by
The concept of ALP Principle has to change from, “Separate entity approach” to “Group approach”. Why TP is considered as a Statistical Game of Mean - Mode – Median? Should the under performers have no right to do business with associated entities? One has to distinguish TP adjustments, which arises due to problem of income allocation between the AEs or due to tax avoidance or tax evasion. The purpose of TP provisions is to avoid shifting of profits, which is not possible unless there is participation in capital. Influence of one enterprise on other in commercial transactions does not result in shifting of profits, hence, TP should not apply. The current system of benchmarking under TP can work only in countries having prefect market conditions and is not workable where market conditions are not perfect like the developing countries as India or other countries. Business models, compensation models are more important than FAR analysis. Ignorance of business model (cost plus model, fixed price model etc.), ignorance of market conditions (prefect market, developing market and under developed market etc.), and heavy reliance on TNMM have led to unnecessary and avoidable adjustments. It is important to note that, though, the benchmarking is done between control transactions and uncontrolled transactions, however, comparison has to be made at four different levels. It has to be at Group Level, Enterprise Level, Segment Level and Transaction Level. Even under the TNMM, product, function and business model etc. are equally relevant. CUP method is not the best method in all situations even the comparables are available. It is seen that in approx. 40 to 50% cases CUP method cannot be applied even comparables are available. Similarly, it is wrong to say that TNMM is method of last resort. In approx. 40 to 50% cases, it can be method of first choice even comparables are available under CUP Method. Cases on Captive Service Providers constitutes approx. 25% of total decided cases. We have done as special research analysis on published cases on CSP. Almost all cases of captive service providers seem to be decided by wrong benchmarking, where, either the method was wrong or the selection of the comparables was wrong! It is interesting to know that even a small transaction of 5% to 10% of total revenue/cost are justified based on TNMM, which is nothing but misapplication of TP provision. There should be limit of number of adjustments and % of adjustments required in ALP determination. Why 3D analysis (three-dimensional analysis of assessee, AE and Industry’s analysis) should be done before proposing any TP adjustments? Transaction by transaction approach without taxpayer's right to adjust its income downward, which is even allowed in the US laws, results in tax on notional income. Why burden of proof is always on the taxpayers? Why compliance cost of taxpayers should not be considered before asking for various information.
Publisher : Wolters Kluwer India Pvt. Ltd. (January 1, 2020)
Language : English
ISBN-10 : 9389859611
ISBN-13 : 978-9389859614
1、本站所有分享材料(数据、资料)均为网友上传,如有侵犯您的任何权利,请您第一时间通过微信(lib99net)、QQ(24661067)、电话(17898078618)联系本站,本站将在24小时内回复您的诉求!谢谢!
2、本站所有商品,除特殊说明外,均为(电子版)Ebook,请购买分享内容前请务必注意。特殊商品有说明实物的,按照说明为准。
1、自动:在上方保障服务中标有自动发货的宝贝,拍下后,将会自动收到来自卖家的宝贝获取(下载)链接;
2、手动:未标有自动发货的的宝贝,拍下后,卖家会收到邮件、短信提醒,也可通过QQ或订单中的电话联系对方。
1、描述:书籍描述(含标题)与实际不一致的(例:描述PDF,实际为epub、缺页少页、版本不符等);
2、链接:部分图书会给出链接,直接链接到官网或者其他站点,以便于提示,如与给出不符等;
3、发货:手动发货书籍,在卖家未发货前,已申请退款的;
4、其他:如质量方面的硬性常规问题等。
注:经核实符合上述任一,均支持退款,但卖家予以积极解决问题则除外。交易中的商品,卖家无法对描述进行修改!
1、在未购买下前,双方在QQ上所商定的内容,亦可成为纠纷评判依据(商定与描述冲突时,商定为准);
2、在宝贝同时有网站演示与图片演示,且站演与图演不一致时,默认按图演作为纠纷评判依据(特别声明或有商定除外);
3、在没有"无任何正当退款依据"的前提下,写有"一旦售出,概不支持退款"等类似的声明,视为无效声明;
4、虽然交易产生纠纷的几率很小,但请尽量保留如聊天记录这样的重要信息,以防产生纠纷时便于网站工作人员介入快速处理。