Freesexchat tn

In this case, a separate corporate entity was brought into existence outside the taxable territory with the ulterior motive of evading the tax obligation by the assessee mills.

The Supreme Court observed: "It is true that from the juristic point of view, the company is a legal personality entirely distinct from its members and the company is capable of enjoying rights and being subjected to duties which are not the same as those enjoyed or borne by its members.

But in certain exceptional cases the Court is entitled to lift the veil of corporate entity and to pay regard to the economic realities behind the legal facade.

For example, the Court has power to disregard the corporate entity if it is used for tax evasion or to circumvent tax obligation." Appear before the House of Lords concerning the principle of lifting the corporate veil Macaura own land on which stood timber.

These are the exceptions to the rule in Salomon’s Case, when the corporate veil is lifted and the reality of the situation is examined.

However, although the principle of separation is central to company law, there are a number of situations when the company and its members can be identified together and treated as the same.

The liquidator and the other creditors objected to this, claiming that it was unfair for the person who formed and ran the company to get paid first.

However, the House of Lords held that the company was a different legal person from the shareholders, and thus Mr Salomon, as a shareholder and creditor, was totally separate in law from the company A Salomon & Co Ltd.

This separation of a company from its members was established in the House of Lords in the famous case. Salomon had a boot manufacturing business which he decided to incorporate into a private limited company.

He sold his business to the newly formed company, A Salomon & Co Ltd, and took his payment by shares and a debenture or debt of £10,000.

Leave a Reply