Misplaced Pages

#840159

23-409: Impasse can provide a credible signal that a party's position is genuine and not merely an ambit claim . Impasse may also arise if parties suffer from self-serving bias . Most disputes arise in situations where facts are able to be interpreted in multiple ways, and if parties interpret the facts to their own benefit they may be unable to accept the opposing party's claim as reasonable. They may believe

46-448: A dilemma – they can either choose not to pursue their suspicions or they can employ highly subjective and/or arbitrary enforcement methods (such as so-called "lifestyle audits") to provide legal basis to their claims. Either approach carries the risk of damaging public confidence in the integrity and/or fairness of the tax system with a segment of the population. Tax authorities employ various methods to deter such activities. For example,

69-433: A "high-ball" offer and/or asking price. When a seller makes a low-ball offer this means an item or service is offered at a lower price than what is needed actually for the desired profit margin to be realized. The seller makes the offer with the intent of quickly raising the price in order to increase profits and/or with the intent of selling would-be buyers additional, more profitable products and services. An explanation for

92-437: A much lower standard of proof. To further deter low-balling, lawmakers in some jurisdictions have even enacted measures to apply reverse onus in civil tax proceedings, meaning that when the tax authorities choose to pursue civil proceedings it is up to the taxpayer to prove that (s)he did not earn the disputed income and/or incur the disputed expenses legitimately and not the other way around. In negotiation , an ambit claim

115-545: A number of reverse onus provisions. The first and most famous of them was the striking down of section 8 of the Narcotics Control Act in the decision of R. v. Oakes . The Supreme Court in the decision of R. v. Laba (1994) struck down section 394(1) of the Criminal Code that required a person who sold or purchased rocks containing precious metals to prove that they did so lawfully. In reaction to

138-716: A remedy, or dispute that it was inherently flawed. After six months the burden of proof is once again on the consumer. In Pakistan, the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 places the burden of proof on the accused in cases where the wealth of the accused is above and beyond his or her known sources of income. Once the National Accountability Bureau , the federal agency responsible for prosecuting corruption and corrupt practices, establishes that an accused has amassed wealth above and beyond his or her known sources of income,

161-578: A taxpayer who is allowed to deduct fuel expenses may high-ball this write-off by also claiming fuel purchased for personal use. Especially if the taxpayer has falsified a mileage log and/or purchases personal use fuel from the same vendors (s)he uses for legitimate business fuel purchases (and obtains the same sort of receipts for both) then proving a taxpayer has illegally claimed such personal expenses can often be extremely difficult. In response, tax authorities suspecting such activities sometimes forgo criminal charges in favor of civil proceedings since these have

184-420: Is an initial demand made over and above what is expected in counter-offers and settlement . Cialdini, Cacioppo, Bassett, and Miller (1978) demonstrated the technique of low-balling in a university setting. They asked an initial group of first-year psychology students to volunteer to be part of a study on cognition. The researchers were clear about the meeting time being 7 a.m. Only 31 per cent (control group) of

207-462: Is taken from the french impasse . Ambit claim The low-ball is a persuasion , negotiation , and selling technique . When used by buyer, the low-ball is an offer for goods or services far lower than the price the buyer is willing to pay, made in the hope that the seller will at least counter-offer a price lower than the original asking price. Sellers looking to maximize profit but expecting would-be buyers to haggle may conversely make

230-546: The Criminal Code , where the accused must disprove an imposed presumption. These sorts of provisions are contentious as they almost always violate the presumption of innocence protected under section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . The only way that such a provision can survive Charter scrutiny is if it can be justified under section 1 . The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down

253-830: The Internal Revenue Service in the United States requires employers in industries where tipping is common to maintain meticulous records of all tips earned and to account for tips when calculating payroll deductions, and also levies heavy penalties against employers and employees alike in cases of noncompliance. Even absent such rigorous and targeted recordkeeping requirements, the increasing prevalence of tipping using electronic payment methods makes it far easier today for tax authorities to obtain credible evidence of low-balling compared to past years. Taxpayers able to claim deductions may sometimes "high-ball" these figures to low-ball their taxable income. For example,

SECTION 10

#1732793203841

276-504: The National Crime Agency . The law achieves its objectives of fighting money laundering by reversing the onus onto the suspect. English libel law is another example. Generally the claimant is required to prove that a statement was made by the defendant, and that it was defamatory – a relatively easy element to prove. The claimant is not required to prove that the content of the statement was false. The onus then shifts to

299-428: The burden of proof onto the individual specified to disprove an element of the information. Typically, this particular provision concerns a shift in burden onto a defendant in either a criminal offence or tort claim. For example, the automotive legislation in many countries provides that any driver who hits a pedestrian has the burden of establishing that they were not negligent. Reverse onus clauses can be seen in

322-403: The day of the actual meeting, 95% of the lowballed group who agreed to participate showed up for their 7 a.m. appointment and 79% of the control group who agreed to participate. Hence, when people have already showed commitment it's least likely for them to back off as they have already made up their mind. Reverse onus A reverse onus clause is a provision within a statute that shifts

345-409: The defendant to prove the truth of the statement which would be considered an affirmative defence. In relation to allegedly faulty goods, the reversed burden of proof ensures that during the first six months after a sale, a consumer need not produce any evidence that a product was inherently faulty at the time it was purchased: the retailer must either accept that there was an inherent fault, and offer

368-426: The effect is provided by cognitive dissonance theory. If a person is already enjoying the prospect of an excellent deal and the future benefits of the item or idea, then backing out would create cognitive dissonance, which is prevented by playing down the negative effect of the "extra" costs. The converse offer from a buyer, a "high-ball" offer, is an offer at a price the buyer hopes is not quickly accepted, made with

391-462: The first-year college students were willing to sacrifice and wake up early to support research in psychology. In a second group condition (lowballed group), the subjects were asked the same favour, but this time they were not told a time. Of them, 56 per cent agreed to take part. After agreeing to help in the study, they were told that they would have to meet at 7 a.m. and that they could back out if they so wished. None backed out of their commitment. On

414-402: The full amount. However, if a taxpayer receives all of his or her gratuities in cash, (s)he may low-ball on his or her tax return by declaring only a portion of the gratuities received. Unless the taxpayer has failed to disclose anything at all (or declared an unrealistically low figure), then without reliable documentation to prove any suspicions tax authorities and the governments they serve face

437-555: The intention of being replaced with a reduced price to pressure a reluctant seller. Low-balling is also a form of tax evasion where a filer misrepresents the amount of taxable income on a tax return. It is most common in situations where the tax authorities reasonably expect taxable income to exist but cannot, without the taxpayer's cooperation, independently determine the amount for want of any reliable paper trail and/or other documentation. For example, most jurisdictions legally require taxpayers to report gratuities and pay taxes on

460-465: The number of shootings in Toronto and as part of his 2006 election campaign, Paul Martin proposed amending s. 515(1) of the Criminal Code so that there would be a reverse onus in bail proceedings for those accused with gun-related crimes. To successfully prosecute hit and run cases, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the hit and run occurred. Yet there is a presumption that

483-406: The onus shifts to the accused to establish that his or her wealth has been gathered by legitimate means. The trial under this law takes place in special Accountability Courts established under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The concept of reverse onus is a shift in burden of proof with the presupposition that the applicant (usually prosecution ) will be granted their application by

SECTION 20

#1732793203841

506-496: The other side is either bluffing or acting unfairly and deserves to be "punished". As bargaining impasse is mutually harmful, it may be beneficial for the parties to accept binding arbitration or mediation to settle their dispute, or the state may impose such a solution. Indeed, compulsory arbitration following impasse is a common feature of industrial relations law in the United States and elsewhere. The word impasse

529-426: The person on trial, for a hit-and-run, fled the scene of a crash to avoid civil or criminal liability, if the remaining essential elements of the case can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Criminal Finances Act 2017 enables a British court to issue an unexplained wealth order to compel someone to reveal the sources of their unexplained wealth . Individuals who fail to account can have their assets seized by

#840159