Search - ”资源化利用" resource

Imperial Oil Resources Limited v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 DTC 6657, 2008 FC 1037-- summary under Payment & Receipt Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Payment & Receipt embedded royalty reduction was not an amount received The Alberta government granted a reduction in the royalties the taxpayer otherwise would have been required to pay to Alberta on condition that the taxpayer invest in an expansion of the Syncrude project. ...

Ives Resources Ltd. v. MNR, 90 DTC 1375, [1990] 1 CTC 2539 (TCC), aff'd 92 DTC 6223 (FCTD), briefly aff'd in turn at 94 DTC 6261 (FCA)-- summary under Rectification & Rescission Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Rectification & Rescission must give effect to agreement In refusing to recognize a price rectification agreement, Sarchuk, J. stated (p. 1378): "Rectification is an 'equitable remedy' whereby one party to a contract seeks the court's intervention to rectify a written instrument which does not accurately reflect the terms agreed to orally by the parties prior to putting their agreement down in writing... the remedy of rectification is not available to correct a mistaken assumption of fact. ...

Commissioner of Taxation v Resource Capital Fund IV LP Commissioner of Taxation v Resource Capital Fund IV LP, [2019] FCAFC 51-- summary under Paragraph (d) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(1)- Taxable Canadian Property- Paragraph (d) mine assets included processing operations Two Caymans investment LPs (“RCF IV” and RCF V”) whose limited partners were mostly U.S. residents, realized gains from the disposal of shares of significant shareholdings in a TSX-listed Australian corporation (Talison Lithium) which, through a grandchild corporation, held leases in Australia and carried out an operation there of mining lithium ores and processing them. ... This integration can be seen in the way in which Talison Lithium itself described the Greenbushes operations in its “Annual Information Form” …. the foregoing passage [in the AIF] draws no distinction between the activities of extraction, said to be mining by the respondents, and the activities of processing. … … The term “mine”, as a verb, is defined by s 8 of the Mining Act to mean any manner or method of “mining operations” and that term refers to a number of different means of refining a mineral. ...

Commissioner of Taxation v Resource Capital Fund IV LP Commissioner of Taxation v Resource Capital Fund IV LP, [2019] FCAFC 51-- summary under Subparagraph 115(1)(a)(ii) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 115- Subsection 115(1)- Paragraph 115(1)(a)- Subparagraph 115(1)(a)(ii) source of gain was in Australia because the sale occurred pursuant to an Australian Scheme of Arrangement Two Caymans investment LPs, whose limited partners were mostly U.S. residents, realized income-account gains from the disposal, pursuant to an Australian Scheme of Arrangement, of shares of significant shareholdings in a TSX-listed Australian corporation (Talison Lithium) which, through a grandchild corporation, held mining leases in Australia and carried out an operation there of mining lithium ores and processing them. ... In affirming this finding, the Full Court stated (at paras. 64-65): What bound the respondents to dispose of their shares and interests in Talison Lithium was not the entry into a contract of sale overseas but the convening of the scheme meeting, the approval at that meeting of the scheme of arrangement, the approval of that scheme by the Court, and the lodging of the order of the Court with the Australian Securities and Investment Commission …. ... That arrangement took place in Australia, and accordingly, because the scheme was the “proximate” origin of the profits earned, and because of the other connections with Australia summarised by the primary judge … including the location of the mine in Western Australia, those profits had a source in Australia. ...

Imperial Oil Resources Limited v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FCA 139-- summary under Subsection 171(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 171- Subsection 171(1) Tax Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal on the computation of refund interest The second taxpayer (“IOVRL”), like the first, took the position that remission payments should be treated in the same manner for purposes of entitling the taxpayer to refund interest under s. 164(3) as instalment payments. ... As explained by Rip J….in McMillen …, the amount of a refund resulting from an overpayment, although often set out on the notice of assessment, is not an assessed amount (McMillen, para. 47). ...

ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Corp., 2017 FCA 243-- summary under Specific v. ... The principle was described in James Richardson & Sons, Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 614, 84 D.T.C. 6325 at 6329, where the Court referred to the English decision of Pretty v. ...

Burlington Resources Finance Company v. The Queen, 2017 TCC 144-- summary under Section 95 Summary Under Tax Topics- Other Legislation/Constitution- Federal- Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure)- Section 95 proportionality principle did not relieve of obligation to seach through scattered indexes for relevant documents The Minister disallowed in full the deduction by the taxpayer (“Burlington”) of guarantee fees, paid to its U.S. parent (“BRI) (which, in turn, was held by ConocoPhillips) calculated as 0.5% per annum of third-party borrowings by it of approximately U.S.$3 billion, on the basis inter alia that the payment of any guarantee fee would not satisfy ss. 247(2)(a). ... The same logic applies to the Burlington’s retention policy. … … [U]nless Burlington can positively affirm that a relevant document no longer exists, it will have to search for the document.... ... Respecting documents requested from non-resident members of the corporate group, she stated (at para. 81): I adopt the comments of Justice Campbell Miller in the HSBC Bank Canada ’s decision where he ordered the Appellant to obtain the documents from its parent. … … I have no hesitation in concluding that it is reasonable to expect the Parents to respond positively to relevant inquiries. … ...

In reversing the finding of Boswell J below that the Minister indeed had such discretion, Woods JA stated (at paras 41, 42): The Minister is prohibited by the statute from granting an extension unless the conditions specified in subsection 166.1(7) have been satisfied. … … [T]he Minister may not extend the time under this provision unless the application has been made within one year. ... Woods JA further found (at paras 47, 48 and 52): The relief that ConocoPhillips seeks is to use the general waiver provision in subsection 220(2.1) … in order to engage the objection process without having to comply with its statutory conditions. ... The general waiver provision cannot be applied in this manner to override a more specific provision. …... ...

ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Corp. v. Canada (National Revenue), 2016 DTC 5016 [at 6588], 2016 FC 98, 2017 FCA 243 rev'd-- summary under Subsection 220(2.1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 220- Subsection 220(2.1) discretion under s. 220(2.1) to waive filing a Notice of Objection The taxpayer (“ConocoPhillips”) claimed that it did not learn about a reassessment of its 2000 taxation year (which nullified a previous reassessment for the 2000 year which it had validly objected to) allegedly mailed on November 7, 2008 until April 14, 2010. ... The fact a notice of objection may be served should not prevent subsection 220(2.1) from applying to notices of objection. … [T]he purpose of subsection 220(2.1) is to blunt the unfairness that sometimes arises by strict application of the filing and notice requirements in the ITA. The Minister’s discretionary power under subsection 220(2.1) should not be unduly limited or fettered through an unduly narrow interpretation which the Minister unreasonably adopted and applied in this case. … Respecting an argument of the Minister (at paras. 57-58) that “subsection 165(3) explicitly requires a notice of objection before there can be a reassessment” and that “the discretion to waive a notice of objection under subsection 220(2.1) would be nonsensical due to lack of a remedy,” he stated (at paras. 58-59): Subsection 165(3) does not state that without a notice of objection, the Minister shall not or cannot reconsider an assessment, and there are situations under the ITA where the Minister is explicitly given the power to reassess without a notice of objection. … Moreover, subsection 220(2.1) specifically enables the Minister to request a document that has been waived. ...

Resource Capital Fund IV LP v Commissioner of Taxation, [2018] FCA 41 (Federal Court of Australia), rev'd on various grounds [2019] FCAFC 51-- summary under Article 13 Summary Under Tax Topics- Treaties- Income Tax Conventions- Article 13 exclusion in Art. 13 of Aust. ... Pagone J went on to find that (based on Commissioner of Taxation v Lamesa Holdings BV (1997) 77 FCR 597) that “consists of” language, such as that quoted above “was intended to assimilate as realty only one tier of companies rather than numerous tiers,” so that “the alienation by the partners of RCF IV and RCF V of the shares in Talison Minerals would not come within the terms of Article 13 consistently with the reasoning in Lamesa ” (para. 83). ... XIII exclusion to dispositions of shares of companies “the value of whose assets is wholly or principally attributable, whether directly, or indirectly through one or more interposed companies or other entities, to … real property or interests”. ...