Does the private component of the City of London Corporation pay any tax on its financial activities? I'm referring to the privately run functions of the City of London Corporation that are exempt from public authority provisions such as the Freedom of Information Act.
CITY’S CASH ANNUAL REPORT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2022 The City of London Corporation is a single legal entity and legislation treats it as a local authority for tax purposes. VAT is recovered from HMRC on supplies received and paid to HMRC on supplies made. All transactions are therefore included without VAT. The City of London Corporation is exempt from income and corporation tax. City Re Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the City of London Corporation in its City’s Cash capacity, conforms to the tax requirements for Guernsey companies. Barking Power Limited and Thames Power Limited are both subject to corporation tax, which comprises current and deferred tax. Corporation tax is the expected tax payable on the taxable income for the year, using tax rates enacted or substantively enacted at the balance sheet date and any adjustment to tax payable in respect of previous years. Deferred tax is recognised in respect of all timing differences that have originated but not reversed at the balance sheet date where transactions or events have occurred at that date that will result in an obligation to pay more, or a right to pay less tax, with the exception of deferred tax assets that are recognised only to the extent that the Directors consider that it is more likely than not that there will be suitable taxable profits from which the future reversal of the underlying timing differences can be deducted. Deferred tax is measured on an undiscounted basis at the tax rates that are expected to apply in the periods in which timing differences reverse, based on tax rates and laws enacted or substantively enacted at the balance sheet date.
In the U.S. a board member would not be an employee just by virtue of being a board member, even if they were compensated for attending board meetings. The CEO, an employee, might or might not also be a board member. Employees can be fired by their manager. A board member can't be fired from the board but, typically, only removed by a vote of shareholders. They are not assigned tasks by managers of the company. This is 100% clear in CA under employment code 622 (a) “Employee” does not include a director of a corporation or association performing services in his or her capacity as a director. I was a CEO of a private company I co-founded I was a board member as a result of voting myself on the board via my stock ownership. The majority of the board could fire me as CEO but I would still be a board member. If outside board members did get compensation, it would be as a consultant, paid with a 1099. The CA code does say that a board member could take on actual work, like auditing financial information, that might fall under the activities of an employee.
They are generally taxed on the portion of their income that is effectively connected with the United States at the same tax rates that apply to domestic C corporations. But, this can be modified in some cases by tax treaties with the country where the corporation is incorporated. The definition of what constitutes "effectively connected income" is a bit arcane but basically involves income from either real estate or an active trade or business within the United States, as opposed to passive financial instrument income such as interest on a bond or promissory note, dividends, or capital gains on the sale of a security. There are many gray areas, which international tax lawyers make their livings cultivating and navigating.
However, if a website is based in the US and the terms of service say that the law governing the terms is US law, how can GDPR have any affect? It is unlikely that the EU will be able to enforce financial penalties against a company with no presence in the EU. But they could for example block your website in the EU, depriving you of your EU user base. The actual measures that they could or would take against such a company are still unclear, since the GDPR is quite new, and there has been no action under the GDPR against foreign companies. I'm not a lawyer, but I've signed many contracts in my life and nearly all of them have some form of "governing law" clause. The governing law clause in a contract identifies the law that will be used to interpret the contract and to resolve any disputes arising from the contract. The law identified in the clause does not become the sole law governing every aspect of the relationship between the parties, however. For example, a business in New Jersey could have a contract with a client in New York with a clause specifying New Jersey law as the governing law of the contract. But that does not mean that New York's consumer protection law doesn't apply to the transaction.
Private prosecution is allowed in New Zealand, so one possibility would be to conduct the prosecution yourself. You could either do that as a case of destruction of property, or under the Animal Welfare Act. It is not guaranteed that your charging document will be accepted (for example, if your document lacks the required content). An alternative would be to apply political pressure to the Crown Law Office, to persuade them to pursue the matter.
Why is a business allowed to refuse a customer? Because also freedom of contract is a right. Except for discrimination on the basis of protected categories, a person or entity is entitled to discretion on whether or with whom to do business and enter contracts. The last sentence in your post reflects a misconception of "completely different set of values and laws" between the USA and members of the EU. Clearly there are many differences, but a comparison of the Wikipedia link you posted and, for instance, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 reflects an overlap of protected categories in the laws of the Netherlands and of the US, such as religion, sex, race, or national origin/nationality. One would need persuasive evidence to support a finding of unlawful discrimination in the two examples you have experienced. Assuming the bank responded to your GDPR inquiry truthfully, the bank's refusal to open an account might have stemmed from profiling or decision-making that (1) does not precisely require specific data about you, and/or (2) uses information the bank does not need to log for purposes of compliance with the GDPR. Note that the GDPR does not outlaw algorithmic decision-making. Since legislation in the EU (as in the US) portrays an approach of market economy, both bank and landlord are entitled to made decisions on the basis of their inner policies for risk management. The policies might be unclear to you, but that does not necessarily mean they contravene principles of equal opportunity.
The shareholders can change who is the company director, but the company director runs the company (until he or she resigns or is forced to sign by the shareholders). So the company director is who has the say what happens in the company. If the contract is between Fred and John Smith directly, then I would expect John Smith to give the orders and to pay Fred. However, Tom is company director, so he can order Fred to stay off the company premises. He can't order Fred what to do, since there is no contract between Fred and the company, and the company won't pay Fred if it doesn't want to - it's up to John Smith to pay Fred from his own pocket. The whole setup is highly unusual. I would assume that the situation is unsatisfactory for everyone involved, so likely they will agree that the contract between John Smith and Fred is cancelled, that there is a new contract between Small Company Ltd and Fred, and from then on the company director gives the orders.
In California, everything that counts as taxable income for federal purposes, and then some. The form is here, the corresponding explanation is here starting p. 18. It includes things that are income but not taxable (see p. 24), such as tax-exempt interest. Potential profit i.e. unrealized capital gains coming from increased value in a home or increased share values is not income in the relevant sense. FAM §4058 is the statutes that lists some of what counts as income, but it says &quot;includes, but is not limited to, the following&quot;. The courts' use of IRS tax forms as defining &quot;income&quot; is not mandated by the legislature, so if unrealized capital gains become taxable income at the federal level, the courts will have to decide how such &quot;income&quot; is to be treated.