Search - 侵犯公民个人信息罪 交易明细 计算条数

Anderson v Benson Trithardt Noren LLP, 2016 SKCA 120, aff'd 2017 SCC CanLii 8568-- summary under Rectification & Rescission Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Rectification & Rescission drop-down documents could not be declared retroactive to the previously-agreed effective date, as this would undercut the Tax Court The taxpayer’s accountants met with him on October 6, 2011, when it was agreed that he would transfer personally-owned land and equipment on s. 85 rollover basis to his corporation in order to facilitate paying off a loan owing by him to the corporation. ... In dismissing the appeal, Lane J. stated (at paras 29, 34): … The Chambers judge was correct to limit the application of the rectification remedy as he did. He saw the application for a declaration for what it was – an attempt to obtain equitable relief not available from the Tax Court, which is a superior court of record but not a court of inherent jurisdiction, and to thereby attempt to determine the outcome of an assessment appeal by essentially binding the hands of that Court. … The Chambers judge properly limited his decision to the issue between the appellants themselves. ...

Canada, 2017 FCA 39-- summary under Rectification & Rescission Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Rectification & Rescission foreign rectification order not dispositive The taxpayer’s Barbados and Cyprus subsidiaries paid amounts to the taxpayer in 2004, 2005 and 2006 as dividends and then, following CRA proposals to assess the dividends, obtained rectification orders from the applicable Barbados and Cyprus courts declaring that the amounts instead were loans to it (or otherwise gave rise to indebtedness). ... Moreover, since these foreign orders involve the appellant and its Foreign Affiliates and not the Minister, a third-party to the foreign proceedings, there is nothing to enforce against the Minister; homologation is therefore a non-issue. … However, Boivin JA further stated (at paras 19-20): I cannot agree … that pursuant to article 2822 C.c.Q. these foreign orders are dispositive and that the Minister has no choice under the ITA but to accept the dividends are actually loans because the orders from Barbados and Cyprus say so. ... These determinations are for the Tax Court judge to make, with a full evidentiary record at his or her disposal. … On this basis, he concluded that Lamarre ACJ should not have answered the Rule 58 question, and set aside her judgment and dismissed the Rule 58 motion before the Tax Court. ...

The Queen, 2021 TCC 40 (Informal Procedure)-- summary under Scientific Research & Experimental Development Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(1)- Scientific Research & Experimental Development taxpayer was engaged in trial and error rather than SR&ED The taxpayer’s business included installing water mains and culverts in housing subdivisions. ... I would describe the appellant’s efforts as resourceful in light of the time and monetary constraints before it, but they were not innovative. [20] … I would consider the use of physical objects and pumps in this manner to be within the scope of their standard usages. [21] The appellant’s approach to this situation was more akin to problem-solving by trial and error than formulating hypotheses and systematically testing them to reduce or eliminate a technological uncertainty. … [23] The fact that the appellant’s recordkeeping was limited to time cards and daily field observations entered into its routine monitoring system, supports the conclusion that the appellant was not engaged in experimental development to achieve technological advancement by creating something new or improving something already in existence. It was unnecessary to track progress as one would in a scientific experiment because there was no hypothesis. [24] … [T]here was no advancement in the field of civil engineering for the purposes of the SRED provisions. ...

Samson, 2023 QCCA 332-- summary under Rectification & Rescission Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Rectification & Rescission date of Quebec agreement did not reflect the parties’ existing intention to realize a loss The respondent (Samson) and a corporation (Bourgade) implemented a plan set out in a tax-planning memo of a tax advisor that contemplated that they would transfer their shares of a corporation (CRP) in December 2013 after having satisfied the conditions for realizing a business investment loss under s. 50(1)(b)(iii). This result was premised on their having had a November 30, 2013 taxation year – which had occurred for Bourgade, but not for Samson who, as an individual, had a calendar taxation year. ... This is not a case where the taxpayer is seeking a tax benefit that he did not anticipate at the time of his tax planning. … The answer might have been different if the rectification had given the taxpayer an additional tax benefit that he had not anticipated at the time of his tax planning. ...

The King, 2023 TCC 127-- summary under Scientific Research & Experimental Development Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(1)- Scientific Research & Experimental Development challenging engineering involving standard procedures was not SR&ED The taxpayer (ML), carried on a business of the custom designing and making of injection molding including for the automotive industry. ... [His] …answers did not reveal or identify technological uncertainties being addressed in a scientific manner. … ML’s favoured approach … was to basically try various options, anticipating that one likely would work. For me that is indicative of routine engineering or standard procedures. … ...

R & S Industries Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue), 2016 FC 275-- summary under Subsection 18.1(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Other Legislation/Constitution- Federal- Federal Courts Act- Section 18.1- Subsection 18.1(2) extension not granted due to unexplained lengthy delay and lack of substantive merit On September 1, 2005, the appellant (“R & S”) transferred its assets to a limited partnership (“BELP”) which was controlled by its controlling shareholder. ... On November 12, 2010 R & S filed a Notice of Objection asserting that a reassessment of its return for the taxation year of the transfer was based on amounts mistakenly provided on the previously-filed s. 97(2) election form. ... On August 8, 2014, CRA confirmed the reassessment, to which R & S filed a Notice of Objection. ...

Development Securities (No. 9) Ltd & Ors v HMRC, [2017] UKFTT 565 (TC), rev'd [2019] UKUT 169 but FTT decision confirmed at [2020] EWCA Civ 1705-- summary under Subsection 2(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 2- Subsection 2(1) a Jersey sub, whose board approved in Jersey a decision contrary to the sub’s interests, resided in the U.K. ... Morgan J first noted (at paras 406, 412): …In reality, … the [Jersey] companies’ real business was to undertake the parent’s plan for the realisation of enhanced capital losses through the acquisition of assets at an overvalue under call option arrangements. … It is inherent in the uncommercial nature of what was proposed or, in other words, that lack of any commercial benefit … that the board were undertaking to implement the necessary steps from the outset on the “say so” of the parent (subject to the legality issue). … In finding that the Jersey companies had their central management and control in the U.K. at all relevant times, so that the appeal was dismissed, she concluded (at paras 426 and 430): Unlike Wood v Holden … this was not a case where the board considered a proposal and, having taken appropriate advice, decided that it was in the best interests of the companies to enter into it. ... The Jersey board were simply administering a decision they were instructed to undertake by DS Plc, in checking the legality of the plan and then administering the other consequent actions prior to handing over completely to the UK group. … In effect, the Jersey board merely rubber stamped the decision to move control back to the UK, having fulfilled the terms of their engagement. ...

., 2020 ONSC 5343-- summary under Rectification & Rescission Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Rectification & Rescission jurisdiction declined in a requested shareholding rectification whose raison d’être was a CRA assessment In order to avoid a deemed disposition under the s. 104(4) 21-year deemed realization rule, two family trusts for the children of Mr. ... In declining to assume jurisdiction, Koehnen J stated (at paras 32, 35): … [T]he Tax Court has jurisdiction to interpret s. 23(3) of the OBCA. … Parliament has created a specific court with expertise in tax matters and has created a specific process to address tax issues. ... The corporate records accurately reflect that intention. … [T]he applicants do not require a court order to correct the books and records of the Child Corporations. ...

The Queen, 2015 TCC 225-- summary under Payment & Receipt Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Payment & Receipt constructive receipt by relieving obligation to pay pharmacist The appellant ("Great-West") provided prescription drug plans to the employees of various employers. ... See summaries under Financial Services and Financial Institutions (GST/HST) Regulations, s. 4(2) and s. 123(1) – financial service – (f.1) and (r.4). ...

A.G. of Canada, 2015 QCCA 837-- summary under Rectification & Rescission Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Rectification & Rescission thin cap issues were not considered at time of paying a dividend The appellant, which was a wholly-owned Ontario subsidiary of a Quebec corporation ("CTI"), paid a $136 million dividend to CTI in connection with a "Quebec shuffle" transaction. ... In finding that the appellant could not retroactively rectify the dividend so as to be a stated capital distribution instead, and after noting (at para. 34) that AES and Riopel dealt with related parties committing an error in giving effect to a "legitimate corporate transaction for the purpose of avoiding, deferring or minimizing tax" and correcting "that error to achieve the tax consequences originally and specifically intended and agreed upon," Schrager JA stated (at para. 43): The payment of the 136 million dollar dividend to CTI was intended and was effected. … Reduction of capital was not intended. The unintended consequences of the dividend, by ricochet, resulted from the thin capitalization rules and was not part and parcel of the transaction. … There was no common intention of the parties regarding these rules as they were never contemplated and so cannot be the object of a meeting of the minds to which a court can give effect. ...