Search - ”资源化利用" resource

Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 198-- summary under Subsection 96(5.1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 96- Subsection 96(5.1) taxpayer failed to provide any explanation to CRA as to why it was not engaged in retroactive tax planning In January 2015, the taxpayer transferred resource properties to a limited partnership that was wholly-owned by it, directly and indirectly. ... In dismissing the taxpayer’s application for judicial review, Aylen J stated (at paras. 41-42): I am satisfied that the Applicant’s “explanation” was so devoid of particulars that it did not amount to an explanation at all. … The Applicant … failed to explain in any meaningful way why it would be just and equitable for the Minister to do so. … I find that it would have been reasonable, on this basis alone, for the Minister to have rejected the amendment requests, without even considering the various other factors detailed in the information circulars [IC 76-19R3 and IC 07-01]. ... As such, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has demonstrated any error by the Minister’s delegate in his finding that the amendment requests constituted an attempt to circumvent the successor rule stipulated in section 66.7 …. ...

In finding that PTAQ was not carrying on charitable activities thorough VPT, as its agent, and after stating (at para.44) that "the control over the agent's activities is a key element to establish that it maintained direction and control over its resources" (para. 44), Scott JA stated (at para. 46) that evidence did "not indicate any form of control over the choice of programs offered to PTAQ by its agent" and instead revealed "that VPT presented ‘predetermined packages' to PTAQ every year." Furthermore, PTAQ failed to establish "that it exercised monthly financial monitoring and control of expenditures… that it funded " (para. 48), and "the fundraising documents… indicated that VPT was conducting the fundraising activities on its own behalf" (para. 50). ...

The Queen, 2016 TCC 175-- summary under Section 67 Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 67 bonuses received by a spouse handling back office functions were disproportionate to her contribution A husband-wife team owned and managed a construction firm doing work in the general Vancouver area with the husband managing the business development and construction work and the wife handling the administrative and human resources work. ... In finding that her bonuses were taxable to the taxpayer, Woods J found (at paras 57-58): [T]here was no evidence…that the bonuses were…intended…to reasonably compensate the Appellant for her duties of employment. … [T]he Appellant received remuneration through her bi-weekly pay that was roughly equivalent to Mike’s remuneration, except for 2008 when the Appellant’s regular pay exceeded Mike’s. ...

On May 29, 2006, each Holdco sold its shares of its Partnerco to an arm’s length public corporation (“Nuinsco”) with substantial resource pools (and Nuinsco acquired the shares of the general partner for $1.) ... In finding that s. 160 did not apply to the transactions, Rossiter CJ stated (at paras. 136-138, 147): The purchase by Nuinsco of the common shares and the preference shares issued in the Second Stock Dividend is, in my view, an indirect transfer of property from Partnerco to the Appellant, when considered in conjunction with the steps leading to and including the Nuinsco Loan. … HLP loaned an amount in question to Nuinsco that would have been otherwise able to be distributed to Partnerco and its fellow partners. As a result, the Partnercos indirectly transferred property to Nuinsco and then on to the Appellant and the other Holdcos. … The question is therefore whether Partnerco transferred this property for less than FMV. … The Appellant has shown that at the end of this series of transactions, Partnerco was left none the poorer. ...

. … Mr. Racine cannot be said to have sat in appeal from a decision he made. ... Sokol. … Dr. Sokol’s evidence was clear, compelling, and demonstrated the appellant’s knowing involvement in the scheme. … Although the above was sufficient in itself to result in the dismissal of this appeal, for the sake of completeness Gleason JA also addressed the other arguments, finding that the organization “had inadequate control over the distribution of funds in Israel” (para. 60); it did not ensure that that the agent used the charity’s resources to carry out activities on the charity’s behalf (paras. 63 and 44); it failed to keep accurate books and records by falsifying minutes of Board of Directors’ meetings and not maintaining documentation to support travel expenses, remuneration paid to fundraisers, activities in Israel and the donation scheme (para. 65); and it failed to file accurate information returns (paras. 74 and 75). ...

The Minister denied the companies’ applications for relief from interest and penalties accrued during their 2014 through 2020 taxation years, made on the basis of “extraordinary circumstances leading to … financial hardship.” ... Otherwise, relief was denied largely on the basis that “the director remained responsible to take the necessary measures … to ensure that all obligations [were] met when required” and failed to do so, and also relief was denied under the financial hardship ground as the appropriate financial arrangements to pay the arrears including borrowing and restructuring finances to retire the debt had been made. ... Challis’ actions did not immediately end with his firing (the companies simply did not have the financial resources to make the necessary payments after such firing) and CRA’s finding to the contrary was unreasonable. ...

By the 2009 MOC, students enrolled on the validated courses were to be "considered members of [MU]" but were not entitled to receive university student ID cards and access to university facilities and resources was very limited. Before going on to find that SEL did not qualify as a “college…of…a university” for UK VAT purposes, Patten LJ stated (at paras 64-65): The word "college" … denotes a group of people organised as an institution usually (but not necessarily) in the field of education. ...

., 2018 FCA 166-- summary under Subsection 103(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- 101-110- Section 103- Subsection 103(1) s. 103(1) likely applies to the allocation of most of the partnership profits at year end to a lossco that never had significant economic interest or risk in the partnership business Income account treatment of the profits realized by a condo-project limited partnership was avoided by 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). ...

While paragraph 149.1(6)(a) permits a charitable organization itself to carry on a related business without contravening the requirement to devote all its resources to charitable activities, the pastor’s private business does not come within this exception. Although it was unnecessary to decide on the further ground for revocation that Many Mansions was engaging in activities inconsistent with its registered object (of “advanc[ing] and teach[ing] the religious tenets, doctrines, observances and culture associated with the Christian faith”), Laskin JA nonetheless stated (at para. 6): Many Mansions submits that judgments on matters of religious doctrine or theology have no place in government …. ...