Search - 三河市 市委书记 现任

It seems to me that on the evidence obtained by CRA investigators the only argument potentially available to them was one that was successfully employed in R v Patry, 2018 BCSC 1524 … where Justice Block entered an acquittal in analogous circumstances on the following basis: … I am left with a reasonable doubt on the matter of the necessary intent for these tax evasion offences. ... He cannot be convicted for being wrong, only for knowingly being wrong. … The fact that mens rea might have been negated in the prosecution of Messrs. ... This was a reasonable position …. ...

Canada (Revenue Agency), 2020 FC 1156-- summary under Paragraph 16(1)(b) Summary Under Tax Topics- Other Legislation/Constitution- Federal- Access to Information Act- Section 16- Subsection 16(1)- Paragraph 16(1)(b) audit techniques re application of s. 94.1, and risk assessment tool used to manage the risks of an ongoing audit, were exempted The applicants, who were awarded damages in Ludmer regarding CRA’s conduct of its audit of their investments in an off-shore company and who had been denied full access to 8,041 out of 38,090 pages of documents that had been identified as covered by their requests under s. 6 of the Access to Information Act (“ ATIA ”), sought judicial review under s. 41 of the ATIA of CRA’s decision to exempt various of such documents from disclosure. In rejecting the applicants’ submission that CRA’s reliance upon s. 16(1)(b) “to exempt virtually all records flowing from an audit is contrary to the wording, spirit and intent of the ATIA,” Bell J.stated (at para. 102): [T[he term “investigation”, in these circumstances, includes tax audits. … Furthermore, in this case the exempt information consists of either audit techniques used by the CRA to identify or guide its auditors in applying s. 94.1 … or a risk assessment tool used to evaluate and manage the risks of an ongoing audit. ...

. … The Applicant … failed to explain in any meaningful way why it would be just and equitable for the Minister [grant the request]. … 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 …. ...

The Applicant’s written submissions… explained that … if CRA did not agree to allow the re-appropriation of the statute-barred credits to the company’s HST liability, Mr. Pomeroy would not be able to pay CRA and would face the possibility of declaring bankruptcy. … [T]he written submissions identified … the resulting possibility that the HST liability would not be paid. ... However, the Guidelines’ … section entitled “Other circumstances”… states that the CRA may also apply ministerial discretion if a taxpayer’s circumstances do not fall within the situations described….. ...

On January 4, 2011, the taxpayer filed a Notice of Appeal respecting losses from the Sierra Trinity transactions – but due to an error, also disputed the disallowance of the Trinity Denton losses (because new counsel were unaware of the 1994 settlement). ... In finding that the taxpayer’s appeal to the Tax Court did not constitute an “acknowledgement” of her 1988 tax liability so as to restart the running of the CLP under ss. 222(5) and (6)(b), Strickland J stated (at paras. 66-67, 76): It would … be absurd if the limitation period could be both restarted by the filing of an appeal to the Tax Court pursuant to s 222(5)(a) and (6)(b) and, at the same time, also be extended pursuant to s 222(8). This could have the result of two different limitation periods running with respect to the same matter. … [T]he Minister’s general conclusionary statement that filing an appeal with the Tax Court is an acknowledgement of debt, thereby restarting the limitation period, is not justified, intelligible or transparent and is unreasonable …. … [T]he plain meaning of “acknowledgment” requires an admission or confirmation by the person making the acknowledgment of the thing alleged, be it an admission of liability for damages, blame, responsibility or liability for a tax debt. ...

. … 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]. ... Aylen J further stated (at para. 53): [W]hile the Applicant alleges that the conclusion that the Applicant was attempting to take advantage of section 66.7 of the ITA is illogical and not rational, the Applicant made little effort in its submissions … to explain this allegation. 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 …. ...

Shaker), Walker J stated (at para. 30): Trust property is not available to the creditors of a trustee where the debt in question is the trustee’s personal debt …. ... To conclude otherwise would improperly and adversely impact the interests of the third-party beneficiaries of the VSI Trust. … The common law recognizes a distinction between legal and beneficial ownership. A person having beneficial ownership in property can enforce their beneficial ownership rights against the holder of legal title. … Justice Brown … observed that a trustee holds trust property solely for the beneficiaries’ enjoyment and cannot profit personally from their dealings with the trust property or with the beneficiaries of the trust [2018 SCC 8] at para 17). ...

In dismissing the taxpayer’s application for judicial review, Strickland J stated (at paras. 23, 27, and 40): [T]he Supreme Court of Canada has held that estoppel … “is of no assistance to a litigant who wishes to avoid the application of a clear legislative provision” …. [T]he Minister’s Delegate disallowed the Adjustment Requests in applying a “clear legislative provision”, that is s 8(1)(b) of the ITA, and was therefore not estopped from rendering the Decision. … [T]he February 14th Letter was a proposal that did not establish the Applicant’s substantive rights or obligations and was not a final decision, … Even though the February 14th Letter erroneously proposed to allow the Adjustment Requests, the Minister’s Delegate had no discretion and was compelled to apply s 152(4.2) of the ITA in accordance with the parameters set out in s 8(1)(b). ... Where the facts and the law demonstrate liability for tax, the Minister must issue an assessment” (JP Morgan at para 77) …. ...

. … The … Request was made in the context of a third-party sale of Mainland in which the CGEs would normally be available with some pre-planning. The Trusts are not seeking a tax advantage they had not considered at the time…. … The Minister’s delegate … imports equitable requirements specific to rectification and rescission without acknowledging any difference in the remedies sought. … They requested only the amendment of the Original Elections, as contemplated in subsection 85(7.1). The Minister’s delegate erred when he stated, “[y]our request is similar to the request Canada Life put forward, in which [the] ONCA said, ‘The court cannot substitute one series of transactions for another to avoid an unintended tax result’”. … I have found that the Decisions do not set out a logical and rational chain of reasoning or explanation sufficient to justify the Minister’s denial of the Second Request. ...

Harris was informed that he had to file both his personal and business tax returns but that the business returns had to be filed first – and concluded that since this conversation had taken place before 405’s disclosure, that such disclosure was not voluntary. Before finding that the decision not to grant voluntary disclosure was unreasonable because it lacked transparency, so that the matter was to be returned to another decision maker for redetermination, Gleeson J stated (at paras 19, 22): The failure to address how enforcement action against one taxpayer would “likely” uncover information that is the subject of voluntary disclosure by another taxpayer undermines the elements of justification, transparency, and intelligibility. … … Neither the decision letter nor the “memo to file” engages in any analysis as to how the enforcement action against Mr. ... Simply looking at the relationship between the parties is insufficient …. ...