Search - стрим ешмек шешу

In rejecting the taxpayer’s argument that “in the settlement agreement, the reference to ‘consequential adjustments’ should be interpreted as only those adjustments that could be made under subsection 152(4.3) …, which would not include the restoration of income for his 1998 taxation year, as was done by the Minister” (para. 26), and that the Tax Court had not made reviewable error in finding that the settlement agreement allowed the Minister to make the implementing reassessment, Webb JA stated (at paras 25, 27): When the settlement was reached and the losses were recognized (subject to certain adjustments) and the carrying charges were allowed, this was, in effect, a recognition that the partnerships were valid partnerships. A further consequence of recognizing the partnerships as valid partnerships is that the amount of income that had been removed should be restored. … [T]he expression "consequential adjustment" does not appear anywhere in the text of subsection 152(4.3) of the Act, nor for that matter anywhere in the Act. ...

In rejecting this position, Monaghan JA stated (at para. 21) that the taxpayer “places far too much emphasis on the word ‘exact’ and gives insufficient weight to the word ‘demolish’ in … Hickman.” ... She went on to state (at para. 25): The purpose of pleading the assumption is to provide the appellant with notice of the case the appellant has to meet …. ...

“[T]he objective pursued by Parliament in enacting Part II of Schedule VI … appears to have been to alleviate the economic burden on persons with disabilities or impairments for whom such devices are a necessity, a social objective which argues for a generous interpretation of Section 9.” ... (para. 49) He noted that the appellant after the reporting periods in issue had commenced requiring customers to certify that they had the prescription in their possession – and, regarding this customer attestation requirement, stated (at para. 85) that: [I]t is not for this Court, in this context, to measure its impact on the burden imposed on the appellant. ...

There are four types of inputs for the purposes of section 141.02 — direct inputs, excluded inputs, exclusive inputs and non-attributable inputs — informing the appropriate allocation method that is to be used by a financial institution in calculating its ITCs. ...

The Queen, 85 DTC 5034, [1985] 1 CTC 31 (FCA)-- summary under Resolving Ambiguity Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Resolving Ambiguity Since "paragraph 20(1)(gg) provides for an exception from the general rule for computing income for the purposes of taxation [,] a taxpayer seeking to benefit from such exception must bring himself clearly within the language of the legislation. ...

After stating (at para. 34) that “the undisputed purpose of the Act was to avoid double taxation by refunding the tax that had been paid under the former Act” and (at para. 37) that Parliament, in authorizing a prescribed method “entrusted the Minister of Finance with the task of identifying the amount of the tax paid under the former Act as accurately as possible, so that it could be refunded,” and before finding (at para. 45) that “subsection 3(h) is ultra vires in so far as it applies to alcoholic beverages,” Noël J.A stated (at paras. 42, 44): The provinces' liquor boards handle the sale of those goods, from start to finish of the marketing process, with the exception of corner stores and grocery stores in Quebec …. In the circumstances, the extent of the tax paid on those goods should, as a rule, have been equivalent to the rate of tax paid under the former Act, without the discount incorporated by the general factor, to take account of the market level. … [T]he Minister of Finance[‘s] … discretion, no matter how broad, certainly did not allow the Minister to establish the amount of rebates as he saw fit, or to favour certain goods at the expense of others. ...

The question … is whether the fact that deferred gains and recapture will never be taxed frustrates the object, spirit and purpose of subsection 97(2). ... …[D]epreciable property or other types of property that give rise to a 100% rate of inclusion cannot be bumped. … The rationale [in s. 98(3)] is the same…. ... In finding that the object and spirit of s. 100(1) also had been circumvented, Noël CJ stated (at paras 101 and 102): …[S]ubsection 100(1) brings into income 100% of the gain resulting from the sale of a partnership interest to an exempt entity insofar as it is attributable to depreciable property. … Parliament wanted tax to be paid on the latent recapture which would otherwise go unpaid on a subsequent sale of the depreciable property by the tax-exempt purchaser. ...

Atkins, 76 DTC 6258 that while the: "... Court has the power to reconsider and refuse to follow one of its previous decisions, we are of opinion that we should do so only when we are convinced that our previous decision was wrong... ...

.[:] "'... the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.'" ...

Manley, 85 DTC 5150, [1985] 1 CTC 186 (FCA)-- summary under Subsection 5(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 5- Subsection 5(1) Mahoney, J. stated that Atkins is authority "for the proposition that an amount paid in settlement of a claim for damages for wrongful dismissal is not salary", but " Atkins is not, and does not purport to be, authority for the proposition that damages, or an amount paid to settle a claim for damages, cannot be income for tax purposes. ...