For tax if you make payments with a net negative cash is legitimate to assume the presence of undeclared income.
This principle has been recently established by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Judgement of 20/11/2009 24,509), which found the existence of revenues in the presence of undeclared cash payments when the company had a cash deficit balance.
All very linear as stated by the Supreme Court, especially because it is absolute common sense to consider the case a negative element of serious accounting irregularities and management.
Also on the trail of uneconomic behavior, the Supreme Court (Supreme Court decision 10030 of 29/04/2009) has found anomalous behavior of a company based restricted stock for years in which members are not receiving dividends.
analyzing two questions, you can find out which common element of the two decisions, the widespread practice of small companies (members owners) to deal with the corporate structure without too many formalities and even at times as if non-existent, coming in more serious cases to a real asset confusion between the personal and the company.
course, the IRS is not insensitive to such behavior, which as seen above, can legitimize real inductive findings supported by the lack of formalism that minimum, and the basic structure of corporate capital.
This principle has been recently established by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Judgement of 20/11/2009 24,509), which found the existence of revenues in the presence of undeclared cash payments when the company had a cash deficit balance.
All very linear as stated by the Supreme Court, especially because it is absolute common sense to consider the case a negative element of serious accounting irregularities and management.
Also on the trail of uneconomic behavior, the Supreme Court (Supreme Court decision 10030 of 29/04/2009) has found anomalous behavior of a company based restricted stock for years in which members are not receiving dividends.
analyzing two questions, you can find out which common element of the two decisions, the widespread practice of small companies (members owners) to deal with the corporate structure without too many formalities and even at times as if non-existent, coming in more serious cases to a real asset confusion between the personal and the company.
course, the IRS is not insensitive to such behavior, which as seen above, can legitimize real inductive findings supported by the lack of formalism that minimum, and the basic structure of corporate capital.
sometimes petty advice of "professionals" are not adequately prepared, while offering big smiles to customers, the other could become enormous tragedies with tax implications so serious that they bring consequences under criminal law.
So what to do??
If the car breaks down I bring it to a mechanic, if I have toothache, I go to the dentist, if I have problems with the neighbor Advocate ...... I go if I have tax problems, societal etc, I turn simply a DOCTOR ACCOUNTANTS , which in most cases is not very nice ..... much, much preparation !!!!!
After this professional, "not very nice," he chose a course of study structured and very complex, because, after the necessary degree in business a minimum of 5 years and a practitioner, has been involved in a very difficult question status, enroll in a Register , and follow a series of stringent rules of professional ethics and mandatory training ......
I do not think little, indeed much, and yet a "charm offensive" disabled "hucksters" of serenity as if they were spreading the Gospel, the world is full .....
0 comments:
Post a Comment