j

*** QuickLaTeX cannot compile formula:
k1880172j

*** Error message:
Cannot connect to QuickLaTeX server: cURL error 60: Peer's Certificate issuer is not recognized.
Please make sure your server/PHP settings allow HTTP requests to external resources ("allow_url_fopen", etc.)
These links might help in finding solution:
http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/core-control/
http://wordpress.org/support/topic/an-unexpected-http-error-occurred-during-the-api-request-on-wordpress-3?replies=37

k

To that end, they concluded a development contract with company (L) which, according to the contract, was to carry out the necessary work (including the unit sale) and receive in exchange part of the proceeds of the sale. The High Court upheld the Tribunal`s decision and found that the agreement constituted a joint project between the parties, to which each of them made its own contribution. It follows that L) had not provided any work to B. It is important that it also concluded that the overall effect of the agreement between the parties was that (L) had acquired an appropriate interest in the immovable property. The Commissioners decided that the amount received was consideration for the services provided to LOL and that it was taxable at the standard rate, but the complainant argued that this amount could correspond to the share of profits paid in the context of a partnership. The advantage for the parties to assert that their agreement is a joint venture is that they could then consider the `share of profits` resulting from the exempt sale of the renovated immovable property to be outside the VAT area as a result of the joint venture. On the other hand, where only one party is the owner of the immovable property and a service is provided by the renovation or development company to the owner of the property, those services are assessed by default and thus create a holding tax for the owner who makes a supply exempt from tax on the immovable property. The first agreement provided that Fivegrange would act as a real estate advisor to CP. These services had to be subject to a specific annual tax, which is subject to VAT. `In the agreement that Fivegrange Ltd was to pay 5% of the profits of the Leicester Square project, it was expressly stated in recital 8 that Fivegrange Ltd was not to be a partner of Crofthaven. The intention of the parties seems to me to be confirmed by the fact that Fivegrange Ltd has not been exposed to any risk if the project results in a loss. Similarly, it was clear that Crofthaven was paying for the property and owning it, and Fivegrange was not a co-owner.

The Joint Undertaking should be maintained through and on behalf of Crofthaven and managed and controlled by the media of Crofthaven`s Board of Directors. Crofthaven should therefore be solely responsible for the management and control of the project. The Fivegrange case is interesting in that the contract was divided into two parts, the profit-making element being separated from the element providing for the provision of advisory services to undertakings. . . .