Browsing by Author "Thorne, Danielle"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2

Restricted
The Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich tax strategies: Could a general anti-avoidance rule counteract the problems caused by the utilisation of these structures?
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2013-01-01) Thorne, Danielle
This paper analyses the Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich tax structures used by large multinational enterprises. These structures enable companies to shift significant profits to offshore tax havens through the use of wholly owned subsidiaries in Ireland and the Netherlands. Application of the New Zealand General Anti-Avoidance rule in s BG 1 of the Income Tax Act 2007 reveals that any attempt to counteract these structures would be highly fact dependent. The paper concludes that it would be possible to apply the rule, but that there would be practical difficulties in relation to enforceability of the Commissioner’s ruling. A similar result was reached when applying the United States General Anti-Avoidance rule. The attempted application of the General Anti-Avoidance rules reveals a fundamental flaw in the income tax system. That is, the inability of the current system to regulate and control intangible resources and technology based transactions.
Restricted
Translating Science Into Law: The Problems and Potential Prejudice of DNA Evidence and Statistical Data
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2012) Thorne, Danielle
This paper examines the admissibility of different forms of DNA evidence in light of the Australian decision in R v Aytugrul. While exclusion percentages and likelihood ratios are mathematically equivalent, there is significant evidence suggesting that they are likely to be interpreted differently. The psychological and statistical research underlyling the minority ruling of McClellan CJ are considered, and found to be highly persuasive. There is no current case law in New Zealand on the topic, so the issue is considered in light of ss 8 and 25 of the Evidence Act 2006. The paper concludes that the current interpretation of s 25 would not enable resolution of the issue. However a wider interpretation of ‘reliability’ would allow a finding that exclusion percentages are inadmissible, in keeping with a focus on fairness to the defendant.