"Its aim was to align the tax rate that the earnings that a shareholder was entitled to, from the activities of the company, with there marginal rate."
I doubt that. You've taken it a step too far saying it wasn't to avert double taxation but to align with their marginal rate (even if that has been offered as political spin). If that were the case it wouldn't have been an exhaustible rebate. But by nature, it will align with the one's marginal rate.
The rule was that the company tax be paid and remain paid.
- Forums
- Political Debate
- Alp franking credit changes I want a straight answer
"Its aim was to align the tax rate that the earnings that a...
- There are more pages in this discussion • 72 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Featured News
The Watchlist
BGD
BARTON GOLD HOLDINGS LIMITED
Alex Scanlon, Managing Director & CEO
Alex Scanlon
Managing Director & CEO
SPONSORED BY The Market Online