AYN Corporation v The Comptroller of Income Tax [2012] SGITBR 1

Article 7 of the OECD Model Tax Convention (treating a branch as a separate and distinct entity) is not concerned with how the second Contracting State deals with the profits so determined, such as by allowing past losses to be used to set off against the profits of the PE. That is the purview of section 37(3)(a) of the ITA. Accordingly, the Board of Review held that the unabsorbed losses of the Appellant (old branch) are available for set-off under section 37(3)(a) of the ITA against its (new branch) profits.

Pasty-gate

I’m following with much interest the furore over the pasty tax in the UK. When the Chancellor imposed 20% VAT on hot baked goods such as the much beloved Cornish pasty, Greggs the high street chain saw red. Through some clever management, they’ve managed to garner what seems to be near universal condemnation of the tax, as well as paint the Chancellor (and the Conservative Party) as people who would rather tax the poor over the rich. The ridiculous nature of this tax has been explored widely in the press e.g. to avoid paying such a tax, it seems that bakers would have to wait for the pasty to cool, thus prompting one baker to say that she would put up a sign in the window: “Hot for the rich, and cold for the poor”! In class-obsessed Britain, such a move by the Chancellor is bound to attract severe criticism. Some might say that this incident makes it even harder for the Conservatives to shake off their image as a party of “toffs” now. Definitely something to think about before you bite into the next hot pasty.