Search - отримувати ешмек шешу

In addition to finding that this claim was non-deductible on more usual grounds (e.g., a negative T2200), C Miller J found that there had been no expenditure, stating: … There are no cheques to Ms. ... I conclude there is not. … I do not see how anything has been paid or expended to Ms. ... The Queen, 2018 TCC 1 under General Concepts – Payment and Receipt and s. 8(1)(i)(ii). ...

8 October 2019- 11:14pm Weaver – Quebec Court of Appeal applies the REOP doctrine to a “gentleman farmer” Email this Content A full-time engineer also maintained two horses, which his two daughters rode in equestrian competitions. ... In reversing the finding below that this “gentleman farmer” was entitled to his claimed losses, the Court stated: [T]he judge did not analyze the activities of the respondent in relation to the objective factors laid out … in Stewart, namely, (1) the profit and loss experience in past years; (2) the taxpayer’s training; (3) the taxpayer’s intended course of action; and (4) the capability of the venture to show a profit. … [I]t is difficult to conclude that the predominant intention of the respondent was to derive profit from the equestrian activities of his daughters and that he showed serious businesslike conduct. ... Weaver, 2019 QCCA 1687 under s. 3(a) – business source. ...

3 August 2020- 10:55pm Contact Lens King – Tax Court of Canada finds that on-line sales of contact lenses were not zero-rated given failure to copy purchasers’ prescriptions Email this Content A GST/HST registered U.S. corporation sold and delivered contact lenses (typically replacement contact lenses) to Canadian consumers without verifying that they had a matching prescription. ... II, s. 9 (which requires inter alia that the contract lenses “are, or are to be, supplied under the authority of a prescription prepared … by [a qualified practitioner] for the treatment or correction of a defect of vision,” Smith J stated: [I]t is not sufficient … that the appellant's website inform the consumer of the need for a valid prescription. The appellant must itself obtain a copy of the prescription … from which it can be concluded that the consumer has a prescription "for the treatment or correction of a defect of vision. ...

9 May 2021- 9:58pm CRA acknowledges that Cameco may limit the use of s. 247(2)(d) recharacterization – and that s. 247(2)(c) must take into account the parties’ relationship Email this Content Regarding the CRA response to the TCC and FCA decisions in Cameco, CRA stated “that these decisions may limit situations where the re-characterization provision in paragraphs 247(2)(b) and (d) could be applied … [h]owever, the CRA will continue to consider the application of the re-characterization provision where appropriate.” CRA further stated: The CRA will continue to administer … 247(2)(a) and (c) in a manner consistent with the guidance … [in] General Electric [para. 54]: “…The task in any given case is to ascertain the price that would have been paid in the same circumstances if the parties had been dealing at arm’s length. ...

However, it was precluded by statute from going back more than three years with its refund claims – but there was no such time limitation where a repayment of VAT was claimed based on there being “a decrease in consideration for a supply.” ... Lord Legatt stated: What is required … is a change in the consideration actually received by the supplier. … All that has happened is that the taxpayer has had second thoughts about how the consideration received at the time of the supply should be analysed for tax purposes. A similar issue could arise under ETA s. 232, which provides for a potential GST/HST reduction where, after GST/HST has been charged on the consideration for a supply, “for any reason, the consideration … is subsequently reduced.” ...

Each objected – but no appeal to the Tax Court had yet been launched. ... Pikes had never been paid for by them, contrary to s. 23(3) of the OBCA), stating: … [T]he Tax Court has jurisdiction to interpret s. 23(3) of the OBCA. … Parliament has created a specific court with expertise in tax matters and has created a specific process to address tax issues. ... Summary of Mandel v. 1909975 Ontario Inc., 2020 ONSC 5343 under General Concepts – Rectification. ...

15 October 2020- 12:04am Bouclair – Court of Quebec orders a stay of a federal tax evasion prosecution based on an ARQ audit file gathered for Quebec civil penalty purposes Email this Content A Revenue Quebec audit team gathered incriminating evidence respecting the alleged diversion of company funds to pay for the construction of a chalet for its CEO (by allegedly paying false invoices directed to it by the builder). RQ did not accord any of the Jarvis protections to the company and its CEO, because it had no intention of criminally prosecuting – it was content to impose the equivalent of s. 163(2) penalties (in addition to the tax) – as did CRA, a year later, following the RQ lead. ... However, he stated that he could not “condone … a practice” of using a “treasure trove of ready-made files for ‘investigation’ and prosecution containing uncautioned conscripted evidence,” as “otherwise, the Jarvis protections simply melt away.” ...

2 January 2021- 9:43pm La Mancha Group – Federal Court of Australia finds that an absorptive merger of a Dutch into a Lux company rendered the Lux survivor as the “taxpayer” for continuing or launching objections Email this Content A condition precedent to the merger of a Netherlands private limited company (“LMGI”) into its sister company (“LMA”), which was a Luxembourg private limited liability company (with LMA as the survivor) was that the Federal Court of Australia confirm that LMA as legal successor would be able to exercise all objection or appeal rights in relation to current and pending assessments of LMGI’s taxation years by the Australian Commissioner. Before providing such declaration, Davies J stated, based on the expert law testimony: Under European law, Luxembourg law and Dutch law, pursuant to the principle of universal succession … all liabilities of LMGI to tax, including under foreign law (that is, the relevant Australian tax acts), will transfer to LMA by operation of law pursuant to the principle of universal succession upon completion of the merger, as will the rights and obligations of LMGI in respect of such tax liabilities …. ... Moreover, LMA, as the “taxpayer” under s 175A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) … will be entitled to object against assessments which have been issued to LMGI, or which are issued to LMA in its place, and will be “the person” entitled to appeal … in relation to objections from those assessments …. ...

21 March 2021- 10:30pm Savics – Federal Court of Appeal finds that s. 152(5) permits the restoration of an initial assessment of income that had been previously reversed by reassessment Email this Content To present simplified facts, a taxpayer reported losses from a film distribution LP of $300 per year in Years 1 through 3 and also reported (and was initially assessed for) the $100 of income-account gains that was allocated to him by the LP for Year 4. ... The taxpayer then argued that the Year 19 reassessment was invalid because it did not satisfy s. 152(5), which prohibits the Minister from reassessing beyond the normal reassessment period to include income that “was not included in computing the taxpayer’s income for the purposes for an assessment, reassessment or additional assessment made … before the end of [that] period.” ... Savics was reassessed in [Year 7], the initial assessment … was still an assessment that was made before the end of his normal reassessment period. … I do not accept that the purpose of subsection 152(5) … is to prevent the Minister, in reassessing a taxpayer under subsection 165(3) … from restoring a taxpayer to their original filing position by reinstating a particular source and amount of income that had been reported by the taxpayer, assessed as filed, and then subsequently deleted as a result of a reassessment. ...

This occurred – the offer of another public company (Inco – the 25% minority shareholder) was accepted by the Diamond Fields shareholders, thereby triggering the payment by Diamond Fields of the break fee. ... The break fee did not qualify as proceeds of disposition of a Falconbridge right to merge, as she did not consider there to be such a right: Diamond Fields could not promise the acceptance by its shareholders of the Falconbridge offer nor could it fetter the fiduciary obligations of its board – there was no capital gain. ... Canada, 2024 FCA 3 under s. 9 – compensation payments, s. 248(1) – property and s. 12(1)(x). ...