Search - стрим ешмек шешу

Rennie JA further stated (at paras. 49, 51): … I do not wish to be taken as endorsing the Minister’s arguments that the issuing of the notices of assessment deprives the Federal Court of jurisdiction to consider the Minister’s exercise of discretion under the ETA. ...

., the expectation “that judges will consider the decisions of their colleagues carefully and, if they choose to differ, will explain why … is not a basis for appellate intervention.” ...

In finding that it was an EBP, he cited (at para. 29) Oldman for the proposition that “[o]rdinarily … an Act of Parliament must prevail over inconsistent or conflicting subordinate legislation,” and then stated (at para. 30): [S]ince the definition of a prescribed trust is set out in the Regulations, the paramountcy of the definition of an employee benefit plan in the Act must govern. ...

Furthermore, the secretary of her husband’s accountant prepared a “Form 1 – Initial Return/Notice of Change” stating that the taxpayer’s directorship started on September 4, 2003 and ceased on December 12, 2003, although the accountant’s recollection of it having been sent to the Ontario Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, was not reflected in the Ministry’s records. ...

Webb JA found that the taxpayer was estopped from now arguing that the amounts that she had treated as dividends in fact were not dividends (so that s. 160 did not apply to their payment)- because the appropriate procedures for the declaration and payment of the amounts as dividends were not followed and because s. 38(3) of the OBCA prohibited the payment of a dividend by an insolvent corporation – on the basis of the application of the principle (based on Wolofsky, 2001 FCA 119) that: [A] taxpayer who has benefited from having an amount included in his or her income as a dividend in a particular taxation year (and who has not objected to the assessment of tax based on having received this dividend) is estopped from claiming in any subsequent appeal related to the application of section 160 of the Act, that the previous filing position was wrong. ...

Webb JA found that the taxpayer was estopped from now arguing that the amounts that she had treated as dividends in fact were not dividends (so that s. 160 did not apply to their payment)- because the appropriate procedures for the declaration and payment of the amounts as dividends were not followed and because s. 38(3) of the OBCA prohibited the payment of a dividend by an insolvent corporation – on the basis of the application of the principle that: [A] taxpayer who has benefited from having an amount included in his or her income as a dividend in a particular taxation year (and who has not objected to the assessment of tax based on having received this dividend) is estopped from claiming in any subsequent appeal related to the application of section 160 of the Act, that the previous filing position was wrong. ...

Since section 18.5 of the Federal Courts Act only excludes the Federal Court from reviewing a decision when another Act expressly provides a right of appeal, this determination would lead to the finding that section 18.5 … is not a bar to the Federal Court judicially reviewing this decision of the Minister. ...

Bowker, 2023 FCA 133 under s. 162(7)(b), s. 220(3.1), Statutory interpretation- noscitur a sociis, General concepts – judicial comity and Rule 147(3)(d). ...

. … The doctrine of paramountcy, as argued by the appellants, cannot be engaged in the absence of conflict between the two provisions. ...

C.R. 1, should accordingly read: … if there is an expenditure which would be made in any case, from which [income] may accrue, the expenditure may be deducted; but an expenditure which will not be incurred unless there is [income] is not an expenditure in order to earn [income]. ...