Search - ”资源化利用" resource

In confirming the decision of the Minister to revoke the registration of the Foundation under s. 168(1)(e) (and before going on to find that the decision of the Minster to revoke under s. 168(1)(b) on the grounds that the consulting fees had not been established to satisfy the requirement for the Foundation to devote all of its resources either to charitable activities or as gifts to qualified donees), Woods JA stated (at paras 37-39, and 43): Prescient Foundation … pointed out that revocation should be limited to instances of “material or repeated non-compliance” …. [T]he Foundation failed to provide any records that demonstrated what consulting services …[Mr.O] provided for the fees he received. … [A] bald reference to consulting projects in an invoice that cannot be corroborated with other evidence does not satisfy the records requirement of the Act. It was reasonable for the Minister to conclude that the failure to maintain supporting documentation to enable verification of the consulting fees paid to … [Mr.O] justified the revocation of the registration, especially since … the Foundation showed no willingness to comply in the future…. … This Court has held that if a charity’s books and records are insufficient for the CRA to assess whether the charity is in compliance with its obligations under the Act, this may be sufficient ground upon which to revoke the charity’s charitable status …. ...

., [2018] HCA 59-- summary under Other Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Fair Market Value- Other discounted cash flow valuation undervalued resource lands and residual valuation overstated goodwill Whether the acquisition by Barrick Gold of Placer Dome (“Placer”) triggered Western Australia stamp duty of A$55 million on the lands of in Western Australia of an Australian subsidiary of Placer Dome turned on whether, on a global consolidated basis, the value of all of Placer Dome's land (defined to include mining tenements and improvements) equalled or exceeded 60% of the value of all its property. ... Murry did not broaden the legal concept of goodwill to include sources which did not generate or add value (or earnings) to the business by attracting custom. … … [A]t the acquisition date, there were no sources of goodwill that could explain the $6 billion gap which was attributed by Barrick to goodwill. That unexplained gap suggests that the DCF calculations used by Barrick's valuers to value Placer's land, its principal asset, were wrong. … [T]he danger identified by the majority in Murry of attributing a value to goodwill which actually inheres in an asset was readily apparent. … At the acquisition date, Placer was a land rich company which had no material property comprising legal goodwill. … [italics in original] ...

CRA took the position that the production activity referenced in Reg. 1204(1)(b) “ceased at the wellhead” – and it reassessed to the taxpayer (a participant in the joint venture) to reduce the amount of the taxpayer’s production profits by the expenses of the OLS (effectively treating them as equalling the income from transporting the crude, and then deducting the same amounts as an expense applicable to the transportation profits). CRA in particular relied on the exclusion in Reg. 1204(3)(a) for “income … derived from transporting … petroleum”. ... The OLS had no impact one way or the other on the amount of income realized by the joint venture owners from the sale of the Hibernia crude and did not in and of itself generate any income or loss for the joint venture owners. … …[P]aragraph 1204(3)(a) was intended to ensure that additional income derived from transporting/transmitting crude does not attract the resource allowance. ...

Canada, 2016 FCA 304-- summary under Investment Contract Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 12- Subsection 12(11)- Investment Contract pointless to determine whether an instrument is debt for purposes of whole Act The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the Barejo appeal – but on the grounds that the Rule 58 question posed to the Tax Court was whether the “notes” in question were debts for purposes of the Act rather than for purposes of s. 94.1 thereof. ... “that endeavouring to dispose [of] the appeals on the merits would serve no useful purpose and give rise to an improper use of judicial resources.” ...

The Queen, 2016 TCC 288, rev'd 2018 FCA 166-- summary under Paragraph 96(1)(f) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 96- Subsection 96(1)- Paragraph 96(1)(f) LP profits can be allocated to purchasing partner at year end Income account treatment of the profits realized by a condo-project limited partnership (HLP) was avoided through the corporate partners (the Partnercos) of HLP paying safe income dividends (out of the realized but unallocated condo profits) to their respective Holdco shareholders, followed by a sale by the Holdcos of the Partnercos to a public company (Nuinsco) with substantial resource pools. ... Nor was there an abuse of the partnership income allocation provisions of ss. 103 and 96 – it was totally conventional that close to 100% of the income of the LP was allocated to the corporation (Nuinsco) which was the limited partner at the partnership (HLP) year end. In this regard, he stated (at paras. 99, 109): In this case, the allocation scheme in the HLP partnership agreement had not changed since the creation of the partnership. … There is no indication that this scheme was chosen for tax purposes or that it was unreasonable. … [N]othing in the partnership regime prevents a partnership agreement from basing its allocation of income on the membership at its fiscal year-end. … ...

., 2018 FCA 166-- summary under Subsection 160(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 160- Subsection 160(1) stock dividend followed by redemption of the stock dividend shares effected in combination a transfer of property for no consideration Income account treatment of the profits realized by a condo-project limited partnership was avoided through the corporate partners (the Partnercos) of the partnership paying safe income dividends (out of the realized but unallocated condo profits) to their respective Holdco shareholders through the payment of stock dividends of preferred shares followed by a redemption of those preferred shares – in turn, followed by a sale by the Holdcos of the Partnercos to a public company with substantial resource pools (Nuinsco). ... After first finding that the allocation of the income to Nuinsco rather than to the Partnercos represented an abusive avoidance for purposes of s. 245(4) of ss. 96(1)(f) and 103(1), Woods JA went on to find that s. 160 would have applied to the transfer of property of the Partnercos to the Holdcos effected through the preferred share stock dividends and redemptions but for the fact that the associated tax liability did not arise until the income was allocated to an arm's length person (Nuinsco), stating (at paras. 112, 115): The stock dividends and the redemption together resulted in a transfer of cash “indirectly … by any means whatever” from Partnerco to Holdco without consideration. … Although the Algoa Trust decision deals with a cash dividend, the combination in this case of stock dividends followed by a redemption has the same effect and similarly results in a transfer of property without consideration. ...

CRA sought to have the Tax Court make a determination as to the validity of Canadian development expense claims by a significant number of different taxpayers respecting their purchase of rights from a resource company. ... Absent an error of law or principle or palpable and overriding error, this Court cannot interfere with its exercise of discretion. … Section 174 does not require the Tax Court to make any type of order. ... The Tax Court was entitled to take into account issues of efficiency and procedural fairness. … [T]his Court must defer to such a factually suffused, discretionary finding. … ...