International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Search results for

There are 33,137 results that match your search.33,137 results
  • The taxation of investments into Australia stands to be materially refocused by proposed legislation, explain Ken Spence and Richard Shaddick of Shaddick & Spence.
  • Frederik Habers, of NautaDutilh in Amsterdam, explains why the new rules confirm the country's investment appeal
  • Oscar Teunissen, Oren Penn, Steve Nauheim and Dmitri Semenov of PricewaterhouseCoopers in the US give an update and reveal the latest policy positions and treaty trends
  • A US court of appeal said the Internal Revenue Service could not see two memos KPMG prepared for the food company Yum because they were created in anticipation of litigation.
  • Peter Costello, the Australian treasurer, said the new measures will allow organizations involved in Project Wickenby – a government taskforce combating tax evasion – to share information better, helping to catch tax evaders.
  • Making friends and influencing people, particularly when those people make policy, is part of the job spec for any tax director. The chance to contribute to shaping a country's tax system is not one that can be ignored.
  • Challenge us
  • The opinion in the Thin Cap Group Litigation case at the ECJ considers that the relevant UK provisions before 2004 could be discriminatory. Simon Whitehead of Dorsey & Whitney analyzes the reasoning and suggests who should take encouragement from it
  • On July 7 2006 the District Court of Arnhem refused to refer preliminary questions to the European Court of Justice regarding the Dutch full tax consolidation regime. Although the District Court acknowledged that the line of reasoning in the ECJ's judgment in the case of Marks & Spencer (case C-446/03) does not apply to the Dutch system of group taxation, it considered it to be "not opportune" to ask preliminary questions "at this stage". It is expected that the taxpayer will appeal directly to the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad).