英国坎特伯里基督教堂大学论文代写：案例分析
案例(B)：但杰克现在必须接受的条款和条件，但这是由MPC方面超出议题范围讨论，这里的重点是在交易的所得税影响下。
对于MPC的情况下会有一个边际的公司税收优惠，它已经产生100000美元的费用，但后来如果这笔交易仍然成功生成MPC额外的利润，这些利润会受到所得税因素对剩余的所有20年的合同期。现在没有这种额外的支付金额，由MPC所得税是费用将减少税前利润(息税前利润)MPC。
例(C)：弗雷德·布朗是参与制定与MPC多年协议，这将是他的第五个协议与MPC。MPC是为了与弗雷德·布朗付他10000美元的弗莱德在业界享有控制权。他有一个位置与该地区的其他供应商一起，以消除来自新进入者的竞争风险。供应商正在汤姆享受在该地区的垄断力量联手，对新进入者。支付10000美元是缴纳所得税的考虑，这是一个货币收益支付弗雷德·布朗正在由于协议由他与MPC。在夏尔地区，但是弗雷德·布朗和其他五个服务站站长备案在Chatswood郡议会程序消除竞争的风险。这些交易只是为了避免新企业的进入可以降低现有企业的利润(理查德森和拉尼斯，2007)。为此目的，这五个成员承担50000美元的法律费用参加共同诉讼与其他5个服务站业主在查茨伍德区成功的对象中的应用。这五个服务站所有者支付的金额为50000美元，不受所得税的考虑，因为它是一个法律费用不承担根据第91节(2)的陈述的所得税义务。这样的交易的法律依据不要求当事人在协议或交易中缴纳所得税(费尔德斯坦，2009)。所以不会有所得税的后果这一协议，郡议会和五人之间。
英国坎特伯里基督教堂大学论文代写：案例分析
Case (b): But Jack will now be bound to accept the terms and conditions being set by MPC but this aspect goes beyond the scope of topic under discussion as the focus here is just on income tax consequences of the deal.
For the case of MPC there would be a marginal tax benefit for the company as it has incurred an expense of $100,000 but later on if this deal remains successful and generate additional profits for MPC, then those profits will surely be subject to income tax considerations for the remaining all of the 20 years of deal period. For now there is no such additional amount to be paid as income tax by MPC as it is an expense that will reduce the EBIT (earnings before interest and tax) of MPC.
Case (c): Fred Brown is involved in making agreements with MPC from years and this is going to be his fifth agreement with MPC. MPC in order to be tied with Fred Brown is paying him as $10,000 as Fred is enjoying a controlling power in the industry. He is in a position to join with other suppliers of the region to eliminate the risk of competition from new entrants. The suppliers are trying tom enjoy the monopoly powers in the region by joining hands against new entrants. The payment of $10,000 is subject to income tax considerations as this payment is a monetary benefit that Fred Brown is getting as a result of agreement being made by him with MPC. However Fred Brown and other five service station owners in the region of Chatswood Shire are filing an application in the Chatswood Shire Council to eliminate the risk of competition. These deals are just made to avoid entry of new firms as it can decrease profits of existing firms (Richardson & Lanis, 2007). For that purpose these five members are incurring legal expenses of $50,000 in participating in a joint legal action with the other 5 service station owners in Chatswood to successfully object to the application. The amount $50,000 being paid by these five service station owners is not subject to income tax consideration as it is a legal expense which does not comes under income tax obligations as per the statements of Section 91(2). Such a transaction of legal basis does not require the parties involved in an agreement or transaction to pay income tax (Feldstein, 2009). So there will be no income tax consequence of this deal between Chatswood Shire Council and five proprietors.
