Search - стрим ешмек шешу

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, 2021 FCA 17-- summary under Effective Date Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Effective Date price adjustment clause eliminated any possible value discrepancy between the FMV of the transferred property and the consideration therefor Before finding that s. 160 did not apply to a s. 55(3)(a) spin-off transaction in which each component transaction entailed a value-for-value exchange including the issuance and redemption of preferred shares with a price adjustment clause, Noël CJ noted, in passing, at para. 50: …160(1)(e)(i) … provides that the consideration is inadequate when the fair market value of the property transferred exceeds the fair market value of the consideration given at the time of the transfer (see Birchcliff Energy Ltd. v. ...

He stated that there indeed was consideration going the other way in the form of “Newco in turn … surrender[ing] the shares which had a corresponding $30 million value in its hands” (para. 69). ...

True, at that point Oldco had divested itself of its most valuable business assets – but it held in lieu thereof Newco preferred shares to be redeemed for a $30M note owing to it by Newco, which had those assets. ...

If it is unambiguous, it will generally be sufficient to apply it, as the purpose of the provision cannot be used to create an implied exception to what is otherwise clearly set out …. ...

She also stated (at para. 23) that “there was ample evidence before the Tax Court … to conclude that the test for gross negligence was satisfied.” ...

The resulting understanding of legislation as expressed in the jurisprudence is not an improper exercise of judicial legislation, rather it is precisely what courts are required to do …. ...

This is the role of the legislature, not the courts …. ...

In dismissing a written argument of the taxpayer on appeal, Rennie JA stated (at para. 21): The Tax Court considered the test from Stewart to determine whether the properties were a source of income …. ...

Keeping establishes that the Tax Court’s role is not to evaluate a taxpayer’s business acumen, a principle the Tax Court respected …. ...

Goyette JA found that the Tax Court had failed to recognize that the redemption amounts, although paid in the course of PC Bank’s exempt financial services business, were also paid in the course of its commercial activity of “driving customers to Loblaws” – and that it did not matter that PC Bank was incurring a loss on this commercial activity because a commercial activity of a corporation was not required to have a reasonable expectation of profit. ...