● Choose a Middle Eastern organization in which you are currently working, or with which you are familiar. Provide a brief description of the organization, including its history, number of employees, products/services, mission/vision, strategies, etc.
● Discuss the problem or issue confronting the organization. Why is there a need to change (e.g., falling profits, low morale, challenges recruiting talented employees, etc.)?
● Assess the principle reasons for the organization’s problem or issue. What is the root cause and what are other causes of the problem/issue?
● Identify the intended change you propose for the organization. Detail the reasons for the change, including any research you conducted that led you to this recommendation (for instance, similar organizations in a similar situation followed this strategy, or studies indicated this was the preferred solution for other organizations in a similar situation).
● Identify a plan to implement the change. Be clear about the steps or processes that you propose to implement this change, including any resources which may be needed throughout the process.
● Identify the measurement/control mechanisms you would utilize to determine if the change management process is working effectively. Also, include any contingency plans you would propose if/when the plan is not implemented as intended.
● Finally, offer a brief statement about what you learned from completing this project and how your research in this course has affected your perspective/perception of change.
justified for the prevention of wholly artificial arrangements intended to escape the national tax measures which would otherwise be applicable. The Court also clarified that the UK anti-abuse legislation must not be applied where, on the basis of objective factors, it can be proven that despite tax motives the subsidiary is established in the host State (Ireland) and carries out genuine economic activity. Part III: Can multiple forms of abuse exist, or is there one unitary notion? THE ACADEMIC DEBATE 6.1 Different tests but the same concept Running against the general grain of this paper, it must be noted that there are of course those such as Lenaerts who would allude to the fact that the definition of a Union concept of abuse of rights by the Commission in Emsland- Stärke and its progressive application to both direct (Halifax) and indirect (Cadbury Schweppes) taxation mean it can be considered an implicit recognition of a general principle only. For many like Lyd , there is simply no difference in how the Court applies its test in areas of indirect and direct taxation. The language used by the Court is often used to support this argument. Indeed, in the Kofoed case, the Court specifically referred to the prohibition of abuse of rights as one general principle of Union law. The aforementioned interchangeable use of words such as avoidance, fraud and evasion has been replaced by simply “abuse” since Emsland-Stärke. Nonetheless, I recommend looking beyond the language debate and instead examining the substance of the matter. As described in part two, there has been a progressive application of abuse of rights to various areas of Union law. However, it is clearer still that the concept of abuse as it has developed in Kofoed and Part Service is substantially different from the one which was developed in Cadbury Schweppes. Accordingly, both claim to be the EU concept of abuse. Since both cases, the small chasm which appeared in Halifax has widened even further. The difference is that under the CS criteria, any reason other than a tax advantage is enough to keep the abuse concept at bay, whilst in Part Service, if the tax reas>GET ANSWER