Search - まっすぐに蹴る ネタバレ

Before finding that the memo was potentially relevant and should be produced, St-Hillaire J noted that there was no accountant-client privilege, stating (at para. 59, TaxInterpretations translation): According to the appellant, if such advice were to be systematically disclosed, the quality of communication between accountants and their clients, and compliance with the Act would be reduced …. ...

Gestion Roy was the owner of such policies (entitling it to the cash surrender value of the policies at any time), so that it was “enriched” when the premiums were paid by R3D (with Boivin JA stating in this regard, at para. 6, TaxInterpretations translation, that “the appellants received an advantage in that for years they owned policies with a total death benefit of $20,000,000 and all the rights attached to them, without having to pay premiums”) – and it was irrelevant to this point that, in fact, Gestion Roy never received any distribution on its policies. ...

. … The facts of Mr Arrbab's case are an unfortunate illustration of the reality that only a right of recourse to an independent tribunal may provide effective protection against failures of administration, including a failure to recognise that time ought to be extended. ...

An RVO advances the same goals as an AVO — albeit by employing a different transaction structure. ...

. … Thus, the return of the unit in each case was to reflect that the original taxable supply was nullified, rather than representing a further taxable supply, so that the application of the s. 332 equivalent was confirmed. ...

In allowing the Crown’s appeal, Skolrood JA referred to his statement in GFL (at para. 60): I endorse the principle … in Preston that tax assumptions containing statements of mixed fact and law will not be invalidated simply on that basis if the factual underpinnings are clearly stated, there is no dispute about the legal principles and no prejudice results. ...

. … The Court cannot consider the control measures and contractual requirements of the client as intrinsic characteristics of a service contract, but must rather considers them as representative of HQ's desire to ensure that its supplier would be able to manufacture in sufficient quantity and supply it with concrete-cement in time and place, taking into account the remoteness of its construction site and the extreme geographical and meteorological conditions of a normal construction site. ...

. … The Contracts mostly provide that the customer retained, on an exclusive basis, the services of IT 2005 SENC for the printing of their flyers and other advertising products in exchange for a price they committed to pay. ...

In reaching this conclusion, he found that: the plant and equipment, to the extent it was fixtures, was fixtures to the land (which was not owned by SBM and, therefore, was not TARP of SBM) and not to its mining rights (which were TARP): para. 112 the mining information of SBM (which was not TARP) had a substantial value in light of the substantial exploration cost that would be required to reproduce this information, as well as the substantial present value of the mining production that would be foregone during the three to five year exploration and evaluation process (para. 105, 132) the question of what a hypothetical purchaser would pay for the mining information, being anything in the range of nil (being what it could be sold for by itself) to the full replacement cost (including foregone production as noted above), was indeterminate – however, "the fair valuation is one which shares equally between the holder, and the potential user, of the relevant asset the benefit to the user of immediate acquisition of the asset" (para. 157, see also 106, 129), so that the mining information was valued at the mid-point between the two extremes similarly, the plant and equipment should be valued "by dividing the notional ‘bargaining zone' equally" (para. 159, see also 107) between its replacement cost and its minimal scrap value it was not necessary to address whether any value should be assigned to goodwill as the SBM non-TARP assets were more valuable even without doing so it was inappropriate to add an asset value representing the excess of the market capitalization of SBM (which was a listed company) over its discounted cash flow valuation (para. 111, 121) ...

In reaching this conclusion, he found that: the plant and equipment, to the extent it was fixtures, was fixtures to the land (which was not owned by SBM and, therefore, was not TARP of SBM) and not to its mining rights (which were TARP): para. 112 the mining information of SBM (which was not TARP) had a substantial value in light of the substantial exploration cost that would be required to reproduce this information, as well as the substantial present value of the mining production that would be foregone during the three to five year exploration and evaluation process (para. 105, 132) the question of what a hypothetical purchaser would pay for the mining information, being anything in the range of nil (being what it could be sold for by itself) to the full replacement cost (including foregone production as noted above), was indeterminate – however, "the fair valuation is one which shares equally between the holder, and the potential user, of the relevant asset the benefit to the user of immediate acquisition of the asset" (para. 157, see also 106, 129), so that the mining information was valued at the mid-point between the two extremes similarly, the plant and equipment should be valued "by dividing the notional ‘bargaining zone' equally" (para. 159, see also 107) between its replacement cost and its minimal scrap value it was not necessary to address whether any value should be assigned to goodwill as the SBM non-TARP assets were more valuable even without doing so it was inappropriate to add an asset value representing the excess of the market capitalization of SBM (which was a listed company) over its discounted cash flow valuation (para. 111, 121) ...