Search - 丁薛祥 2025年年龄

In reversing the Tax Court’s finding that s. 26 of the I nterpretation Act had not extended the time for the receipt by CRA of the waiver to that Monday, Biringer JA stated (at paras. 42 – 44, 47): There is nothing in the text to suggest a limitation on the type of thing (acte ou formalité) to which the provision applies or that there be the loss of a right. … Section 26 is a remedial provision. It provides relief when the time limit for doing a thing expires on a holiday, allowing the thing to be done on the next day that is not a holiday. … I am satisfied that the filing of a waiver is the “doing of a thing” for the purposes of section 26 …. … I do not view the time limited for filing a waiver as conceptually different for this purpose from the deadlines for filing a notice of objection or notice of appeal …. The Tax Court has applied section 26 … to extend the time for filing both …. ...

In reversing the Tax Court’s finding that s. 26 of the I nterpretation Act had not extended the time for the receipt by CRA of the waiver to that Monday, Biringer JA stated (at paras. 42 – 44, 47): There is nothing in the text to suggest a limitation on the type of thing (acte ou formalité) to which the provision applies or that there be the loss of a right. … Section 26 is a remedial provision. It provides relief when the time limit for doing a thing expires on a holiday, allowing the thing to be done on the next day that is not a holiday. … I am satisfied that the filing of a waiver is the “doing of a thing” for the purposes of section 26 …. … I do not view the time limited for filing a waiver as conceptually different for this purpose from the deadlines for filing a notice of objection or notice of appeal …. The Tax Court has applied section 26 … to extend the time for filing both …. ...

Royal Bank of Canada v Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs, [2025] UKSC 2-- summary under Separate Existence Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Separate Existence tax code rests on separate existence of each corporation In connection with finding that a right to work an oil field of a UK subsidiary of a Canadian corporation was not a right of the Canadian corporation to work the field, Lady Rose stated (at para. 88): The idea that an "artificial creation of the legislature", namely a company, has a separate legal personality from its shareholders has been protected and reaffirmed from Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 onwards. ...

Canada, 2025 FCA 77-- summary under Subsection 111(5) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 111- Subsection 111(5) Deans Knight applied to the acquisition of a public lossco by a SIFT trust In September 2007, a company (“Nexia”), which traded in loss companies, acquired all of non-voting common shares of an insolvent public corporation (“Biomerge”) (representing 80% of its equity) and 45% of its voting common shares. ... (para. 4) It was also immaterial that s. 256(7)(c)(i) (dealing specifically with a transaction of this type) was added only subsequently (“ Deans Knight … did not look at other provisions enacted after s. 111(5) in order to determine the object, spirit, and purpose of s. 111(5).” ...

Royal Bank of Canada v Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs, [2025] UKSC 2-- summary under Article 6 Summary Under Tax Topics- Treaties- Income Tax Conventions- Article 6 an oil and gas royalty was too remote from a land interest in the oil field to be immovable property under the Canada-U.K. ... Sulpetro has the latter but not the former. … The idea that … a company, has a separate legal personality from its shareholders has been protected and reaffirmed from Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 onwards. ...

Freedom Cannabis Inc (Re), 2025 ABKB 272-- summary under Subsection 323(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 323- Subsection 323(2) Court had the discretion under the CCAA to eliminate directors’ personal liability arising under a federal taxing statute Freedom Cannabis Inc. ...

In rejecting the Bank’s position, Woods JA indicated: Given that “Parliament seeks certainty, predictability and fairness in tax legislation … [i]f Parliament did not intend to impose interest when a loss carryback is claimed as a result of an audit adjustment, it is likely that Parliament would have provided for this with explicit language” (para. 39). ... It was “likely that Parliament knew that subparagraph (b)(iv) could function in a manner similar to a penalty … [and] that substantial interest could accrue under subparagraph (b)(iv) if the carryback request resulted from an audit” (para. 50). Although the Crown’s position could “result in different treatment between loss carrybacks and …. loss carryforwards … Parliament enacted a specific provision dealing with loss carrybacks, and it chose not to adopt an analogous provision for loss carryforwards” (para. 53). ...

Canada, 2024 FCA 192, leave granted 22 May 2025 (41643)-- summary under Paragraph 111(1)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 111- Subsection 111(1)- Paragraph 111(1)(a) Minister has the discretion to reject a loss carryback request In rejecting the taxpayer’s submission (in the context of the Minister having carried back, at the taxpayer’s request, a non-capital loss to offset increased income in an earlier year pursuant to an audit adjustment, “that where the Minister proposes to reassess for her own reasons (i.e., an audit adjustment) … the Minister has no ability to refuse the carryback request in these circumstances because a taxpayer has a statutory right to claim a loss carryback by virtue of paragraph 111(1)(a)” (para. 41), Woods JA stated (at para. 42): The Minister has the right to reject a taxpayer’s request for a loss carryback. The point was made in Greene … 95 D.T.C. 5684 … that the Minister only has to consider a request, not necessarily issue a reassessment granting the request. ...

The King, 2025 TCC 44-- summary under Subsection 175(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 175- Subsection 175(1)- Paragraph 175(1)(b) hospital employers could not apply s. 175(1) to the reimbursed health care expenses of their employees The appellants, which were Nova Scotia health authorities operating hospitals, through the administrator of a health care plan, reimbursed their employees for their costs including HST of acupuncture, massage therapy, naturopathy, or homeopathy services. ... After indicating (at para. 27) that the only “notable difference” between this case and Westcoast Energy was that in Westcoast Energy the “appellant sought to use the deeming effect of subsection 175(1) as a basis for claiming input tax credits rather than the public service body rebate,” Wong J went on to find that here s. 175(1) did not apply, stating (at paras. 30 – 31): Here, the Services are of a particularly personal and individual nature, designed to be consumed by the person purchasing the supply. … [I]t is difficult to reasonably conclude that the Services were used by the appellants’ employees in the course of their employment activities, as I would expect them to access these types of services on their personal time. … [T]he connection between the use of the Services and the employee’s employment activities is even more tenuous when the employee’s family member receives the supply. ...