Search - まっすぐに蹴る ネタバレ

Regarding the failure to satisfy the first test, Locke JA noted that the Crown did not become aware of the relevance of the additional evidence until six days before the hearing of the Tax Court motion, at which point there was no established procedure for introducing such evidence – but nonetheless found (at para. 14) that he was “not convinced that the appellant could not have sought, and possibly obtained, leave to put the evidence before the Tax Court.” In nonetheless allowing the new evidence, he stated (at paras. 21, 24): … I am conscious that the motion before the Tax Court was an interlocutory matter, and the respondent’s opportunity to adduce this evidence was limited because of the absence of a clear procedural mechanism for doing so. ...

In rejecting the taxpayer’s argument that “in the settlement agreement, the reference to ‘consequential adjustments’ should be interpreted as only those adjustments that could be made under subsection 152(4.3) …, which would not include the restoration of income for his 1998 taxation year, as was done by the Minister” (para. 26), and that the Tax Court had not made reviewable error in finding that the settlement agreement allowed the Minister to make the implementing reassessment, Webb JA stated (at paras 25, 27): When the settlement was reached and the losses were recognized (subject to certain adjustments) and the carrying charges were allowed, this was, in effect, a recognition that the partnerships were valid partnerships. A further consequence of recognizing the partnerships as valid partnerships is that the amount of income that had been removed should be restored. … [T]he expression "consequential adjustment" does not appear anywhere in the text of subsection 152(4.3) of the Act, nor for that matter anywhere in the Act. ...

In rejecting this position, Monaghan JA stated (at para. 21) that the taxpayer “places far too much emphasis on the word ‘exact’ and gives insufficient weight to the word ‘demolish’ in … Hickman.” ... She went on to state (at para. 25): The purpose of pleading the assumption is to provide the appellant with notice of the case the appellant has to meet …. ...

“[T]he objective pursued by Parliament in enacting Part II of Schedule VI … appears to have been to alleviate the economic burden on persons with disabilities or impairments for whom such devices are a necessity, a social objective which argues for a generous interpretation of Section 9.” ... (para. 49) He noted that the appellant after the reporting periods in issue had commenced requiring customers to certify that they had the prescription in their possession – and, regarding this customer attestation requirement, stated (at para. 85) that: [I]t is not for this Court, in this context, to measure its impact on the burden imposed on the appellant. ...

The Queen, 85 DTC 5034, [1985] 1 CTC 31 (FCA)-- summary under Resolving Ambiguity Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Resolving Ambiguity Since "paragraph 20(1)(gg) provides for an exception from the general rule for computing income for the purposes of taxation [,] a taxpayer seeking to benefit from such exception must bring himself clearly within the language of the legislation. ...

The question … is whether the fact that deferred gains and recapture will never be taxed frustrates the object, spirit and purpose of subsection 97(2). ... …[D]epreciable property or other types of property that give rise to a 100% rate of inclusion cannot be bumped. … The rationale [in s. 98(3)] is the same…. ... In finding that the object and spirit of s. 100(1) also had been circumvented, Noël CJ stated (at paras 101 and 102): …[S]ubsection 100(1) brings into income 100% of the gain resulting from the sale of a partnership interest to an exempt entity insofar as it is attributable to depreciable property. … Parliament wanted tax to be paid on the latent recapture which would otherwise go unpaid on a subsequent sale of the depreciable property by the tax-exempt purchaser. ...

Atkins, 76 DTC 6258 that while the: "... Court has the power to reconsider and refuse to follow one of its previous decisions, we are of opinion that we should do so only when we are convinced that our previous decision was wrong... ...

.[:] "'... the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.'" ...

Manley, 85 DTC 5150, [1985] 1 CTC 186 (FCA)-- summary under Subsection 5(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 5- Subsection 5(1) Mahoney, J. stated that Atkins is authority "for the proposition that an amount paid in settlement of a claim for damages for wrongful dismissal is not salary", but " Atkins is not, and does not purport to be, authority for the proposition that damages, or an amount paid to settle a claim for damages, cannot be income for tax purposes. ...

Poirier, 92 DTC 6335, [1992] 2 CTC 9 (FCA)-- summary under Subsection 31(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 31- Subsection 31(1) In finding that an operation of raising Charolais cattle was not the taxpayer's chief source of income, MacGuigan J.A. stated: "... it is patent to us that farming was in a subordinate position to the respondent's employment occupation. ...