論文代寫-有關逃稅的ITA Ahead信托基金的案例分析。這個國家的納稅人必須按照稅收法規納稅。如果個人或團體為了自己的利益而扭曲稅收規則，那麽這將被視為非法行為，他們必須向政府繳納稅款。在給定的案例研究中，George和IT Ahead trust之間的協議根據BG 1ita 2007是無效的。該信托被用於開展活動和逃稅。根據稅法，這種行為是在利用稅收優惠。《協定》應該說明一些理由，說明它們不是為了自己的目的進行這些活動。ITA Ahead信托基金保留了4萬美元的稅款。違反了2007年所得稅法的規定，可以對IT Ahead信托公司采取法律行動。
The section YA 1 defines the arrangement as a contract or agreement, which can be a plan or understanding and it can be enforceable or unenforceable inclusive of the entire steps along with transactions by which it has been brought into effect . The tax avoidance adds:
Directly or indirectly changing the incident of an income tax
Directly or indirectly provide relieve an individual from the liability of making income tax payment, or relieve an individual from possible or potential tax liabilities for the future income tax
Directly or indirectly avoiding, reducing or postponing any responsibility or liability for income tax provision or from possible or potential tax liabilities for the future income tax
The tax avoidance arrangement is tax avoidance purpose by a man who directly or indirectly intends to avoid the tax consequence. In the case, it is evident that George purposely arranges an agreement between his family trust (IT ahead) and him that help him in avoiding the tax consequence. He employed his wife with his family trust (IT Ahead) to avoid the tax, which is purposely in order to avoid tax. Hence it is an act of purposely tax avoidance that must be encountered by BG 1 (2) section of the Income Tax Act 2007. According to the case Trinity- Ben Nevis Forestry Ventures Ltd & Ors v CIR (2009) 24 NZTC 23, 188 case George arrangement can be encountered by the term and condition of the Income Tax Act 2007 in order to fight against the Tax avoidance act by the individual. According to the Income-tax ACT 2007, George has done the arrangement in order to avoid the income tax, hence the Commissioner of income tax can encounter the arrangement of George which he made in order to avoid the tax consequences. The Section BG 1 (2) provides the rule that supports in reconstructing the tax arrangements of the individuals who arrange their income purposely in order to avoid the tax consequences. Therefore, according to the Section BG 1 (2), George tax arrangement will be reconstructed. As the Commissioner has the power of adjusting the tax provisions of an individual, according to the case of Newton v, FCT and CIR v Ashton (1974) George arrangement can be challenged by the Commissioner and the Commissioner can reconstruct his tax provisions.