Calcutta Jute Mills v. Nicholson (1876) 1 ExD 428 (Ex) at 432.

Ned Shelton. Interpretation and application of double tax treaties. Tottel Publishing, reprinted 2007. P. 67.

Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 1. Principles. Taxmann, 2007. Р. 210.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Klaus Vogel. Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International, 1997. P. 262–264.

Roy Rohatgi. Basic International Taxation. Second Edition. Vol. 1. Principles. Taxmann, 2007. Р. 210.

De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd. v. Howe (1906) AC 455. URL: www.uniset.ca/other/cs5/19052KB612.html.

Исходный текст (англ.): «…An individual may be of foreign nationality, and yet reside in the United Kingdom. So may a company. Otherwise it might have its chief seat of management and its centre of trading in England under the protection of English law, and yet escape the appropriate taxation by the simple expedient of being registered abroad and distributing its dividends abroad… In applying the conception of residence to a company, we ought, I think, to proceed as nearly as we can upon the analogy of an individual. A company cannot eat or sleep, but it can keep house and do business. We ought, therefore, to see where it really keeps house and does business… The decision of Kelly C.B. and Huddleston B. in the Calcutta Jute Mills v. Nicholson (1876) 1 Ex. D. 428. and the Cesena Sulphur Co. v. Nicholson (1876) 1 Ex. D. 428, now thirty years ago, involved the principle that a company resides for the purposes of income tax where its real business is carried on… I regard that as the true rule, and the real business is carried on where the central management and control actually abides. <…> This is a pure question of fact to be determined, not according to the construction of this or that regulation or by-law, but upon a scrutiny of the course of business and trading…»