Propose a change

Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010

Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.

Change 1

What to do with it
As published

133 Special relationship rule for royalties: matters to be shown by taxpayer

(1) If this section applies (as to which, see section 132(1)), the special relationship rule is to be read as requiring the taxpayer to show— (a) the absence of any special relationship, or (b) as the case may be, the rate or amounts of royalties that would have been payable in the absence of the special relationship. (2) The requirement under subsection (1)(a) includes whichever is applicable of the following requirements. (3) The first of those requirements is— (a) to show that no person of any of the descriptions in section 132(4)(a) to (d) has previously been the beneficial owner of the asset in respect of which the royalties are paid, and (b) to show that no person of any of those descriptions has previously been the beneficial owner of any asset which that asset represents or from which it is derived. (4) The second of those requirements is— (a) to show that the transaction, or series of transactions, mentioned in section 132(5)(a) would have taken place in the absence of a special relationship, and (b) to show the amounts which would have been paid under the transaction, or under each of the transactions in the series of transactions, in the absence of a special relationship.

Your change, as a redline

133 Special relationship rule for royalties: matters to be shown by taxpayer

(1) If this section applies (as to which, see section 132(1)), the special relationship rule is to be read as requiring the taxpayer to show— (a) the absence of any special relationship, or (b) as the case may be, the rate or amounts of royalties that would have been payable in the absence of the special relationship. (2) The requirement under subsection (1)(a) includes whichever is applicable of the following requirements. (3) The first of those requirements is— (a) to show that no person of any of the descriptions in section 132(4)(a) to (d) has previously been the beneficial owner of the asset in respect of which the royalties are paid, and (b) to show that no person of any of those descriptions has previously been the beneficial owner of any asset which that asset represents or from which it is derived. (4) The second of those requirements is— (a) to show that the transaction, or series of transactions, mentioned in section 132(5)(a) would have taken place in the absence of a special relationship, and (b) to show the amounts which would have been paid under the transaction, or under each of the transactions in the series of transactions, in the absence of a special relationship.

One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".

Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.

A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.

Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.

Sign in to file it

Think it through

Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.

Questions to start with
Think it through
Legal information from the published text, not advice for your case. Check the sources. Find a law · What the register holds