- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 months ago by
John Moffat.
John Moffat.-
Posts
-
Ron123
- Topics: 68
- Replies: 86
- ☆☆
Hi. In part (a), for the tax paid on Magnolia’s profits, it is calculated as (28 – 22)% x 5.40m = 0.32. Please may I know the rationale of using “28% – 22%”, instead of “22%”, since Magnolia’s profit will be taxed at 22%, as according to the question?
Thank you.
John Moffat
- Topics: 57
- Replies: 50611
- ☆☆☆☆☆
As per note 3 of the question, Lamri is taxed at 28% on all their profits including profits made by subsidiaries. They get full credit for tax already paid by subsidiaries. Magnolia has already been taxed at 22% and so Lamri only has to Pau the extra 6%.
(This is the normal tax rule in practice when there is a bilateral tax treaty, and I explain it also in my free lectures on foreign investment appraisal.)
Ron123
- Topics: 68
- Replies: 86
- ☆☆
Oh I see. That means there’s no tax paid on Strymon’s profit because Strymon has already been taxed at 42%, and Lamri will therefore get full credit for such tax already paid?
Thank you.
John Moffat
- Topics: 57
- Replies: 50611
- ☆☆☆☆☆
Correct, and you are welcome.
John Moffat- The topic ‘BPP Revision Kit (AFM) Q.9 Lamri’ is closed to new replies.