Search - 侵犯公民个人信息罪 交易明细 计算条数

Before reversing the decision below that the masters were Class 8(j) tangible capital property, and agreeing with the ARQ that they instead were eligible capital property (now Class 14.1 property), Schrager JA referenced s. 18 of the Copyright Act, which provided that “the maker of a sound recording has a copyright in the sound recording, consisting of the sole right to … [inter alia] reproduce it in any material form,” and then stated (at para. 31): There are intangible rights … as described in section 18 … which were purchased in association with the physical tapes. ... The value is found in what is recorded on the plastic or cellulose and what Respondent can do with it – i.e. make and sell good quality copies …. ... Unidisc Musique Inc., 2021 QCCA 393 under Class 14.1, s. 152(8) and General Concepts – Onus. ...

4 May 2021- 11:09pm Blue Bridge – Federal Court of Appeal finds that CRA was not responsible for analyzing whether information requested by France could be used contrary to the French Treaty Email this Content Art. 26(1) of the Canada-France Convention provides for exchanges of “such information as is foreseeably relevant … to the administration or enforcement of the domestic laws concerning taxes of every kind … imposed on behalf of the Contracting States, insofar as the taxation thereunder is not contrary to the Convention.” ... She stated: The judge rightly concluded that a requirement for thorough research and analysis of the facts and the law of the requesting State would impede the proper and effective operation of the Convention’s provisions …. ... Canada (National Revenue), 2021 CAF 62 under Treaties – Income Tax Conventions – Art. 27. ...

Under that law … Mr Fowler is deemed not to be in employment but rather carrying on a trade. Henderson LJ (also in the majority) stated: My approach does not depend to any significant extent on the provisions of article 3(2) … however, I would accept … that the purpose of article 3(2) is to anchor the provisions of the treaty … to the domestic tax law of the Contracting State which is applying the treaty. ... Summary of Fowler v HM Revenue and Customs [2018] EWCA Civ 2544 under Treaties – Income Tax Conventions – Art. 3(2). ...

Sommerfeldt J then considered the exception in ETA s. 191(5), which provides that an individual builder is not required to so self-assess where “after the construction … of the complex … is substantially completed, the complex is used primarily as a place of residence for the individual [or family].” He quoted the conclusions of Hogan J in Coates that: [S]ubsection 191(5) … requires … a simple factual determination as to whether or not the property was used as a family home after it was substantially completed. … [T[he exception cannot be interpreted as requiring that the property have been built only for purely personal reasons. ... The Queen, 2020 TCC 115 under ETA s. 123(1) – builder – (f) and s. 191(5). ...

To avoid this result, the trustees entered into an agreement with the Rémillard Brothers, in intended reliance on s. 256(7)(a)(ii), providing: The Trustees hereby undertake to exercise their powers … according to the directives provided by the Brothers and to make no decision regarding the Historia Trust without first obtaining the agreement of the Rémillard Brothers. … If the Trustees or any of them disagree with the directives received from the Rémillard Brothers, they must then resign …. ... Article 1275 of the Civil Code of Quebec (the CCQ) provided: The … beneficiary may be a trustee but he shall act jointly with a trustee who is neither the settlor nor a beneficiary. ... The King, 2024 CCI 76 under s. 104(6)(b) and General Concepts – Illegality. ...

6 April 2017- 12:23am Cybernius – Federal Court orders the Minister to make a taxpayer-requested s. 221.2(1) transfer between two taxpayer accounts Email this Content S. 221.2(1) gives CRA the discretion to transfer amounts between different tax accounts of a taxpayer. CRA refused a taxpayer request to transfer a credit balance respecting the taxpayer’s Part I tax – which had arisen because CRA had garnished amounts to collect an arbitrary assessment for some taxation years which later turned out not to have any significant Part I tax liability – to satisfy its arrears of source deduction remittances. McVeigh J found that CRA had acted unreasonably in not granting this request – which initially had been refused on the grounds that at the time of the request, a subsequent year’s return was overdue – given that by the time the matter came before her, the taxpayer was no longer delinquent in its filing obligations – and effectively ordered CRA to grant the transfer request. ...

31 March 2019- 11:25pm Lavrinenko and Morrissey – Federal Court of Appeal finds that “near equal” means no lower than 45% Email this Content While normally the Canada child tax benefit (CCTB) and the GST/HST credits (the “Benefits”) can at most be claimed by only one parent, individuals who are a child’s “shared‑custody parent” are each entitled to ½ of the Benefits. ... Canada, 2019 FCA 51 under s. 122.6 – shared-custody parent – para. (b) and summary of Morrissey v. Canada, 2019 FCA 56 under s. 122.6 – shared-custody parent – para. (b). ...

20 January 2020- 12:00am Morris – Court of Quebec finds that disclosure of part of a legal opinion in an audit report was not a waiver of privilege Email this Content The taxpayer, who faced tax evasion charges, argued that there had been waiver of the privilege attached to a legal opinion prepared by a notary working for the ARQ when part of that opinion was included in an audit report that had been provided to him. ... In finding that there had been no such waiver, so that the opinion continued to be protected by the privilege, Asselin JCQ stated: Only the client can waive it. … [T]he disclosure of part of the legal opinion does not constitute an implied waiver of the right to legal professional privilege. … [T]here is no evidence that the auditor … was authorized, in the course of her duties, to disclose it in whole or in part. ... Morris, 2019 QCCQ 7635 under s. 232(1) – solicitor-client privilege and Charter – s. 7. ...

Solo Capital – Court of Appeal of England and Wales finds that the revenue rule does not apply to fictitious tax refund claims made by a non-taxpayer Email this Content The Danish Customs and Tax Divisions (“SKAT”) brought claims in an English civil court seeking to recover £1.44 billion which it had paid based on allegedly fraudulent claims for refunds of Danish dividend withholding tax – SKAT alleged that most of the defendants had fraudulently misrepresented that they, as shareholders of Danish companies, had been subject to withholding at a rate in excess of the Treaty-reduced rate on dividends when, in fact, they never had held any shares in any of the relevant Danish companies. ... There was no tax due and those who committed the fraud were never taxpayers. … [W]hat SKAT is saying entitles it to repayment is not that the … alleged fraud defendants owe it tax or have cheated it out of tax, but that it was induced by fraudulent misrepresentation to pay away monies to these persons to which they were not entitled on any basis. ... Summary of Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners LLP, [2022] EWCA Civ 234 under Statutory Interpretation – Revenue Rule. ...

14 November 2022- 11:59pm 1410109 Ontario – Tax Court of Canada finds that a “gratuity” that was required to be paid was subject to HST Email this Content The contract of an incorporated banquet hall with its event customers stipulated: “All Pricing is Subject to 13% HST and 15% Gratuities.” ... He dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal, on the basis that the gratuities were not voluntary, stating: Subsection 133(b) combined with subsection 138(a) … suggests that tips included in an agreement are part of the overall supply of prepared meals, which is subject to HST. … The ETA defines “consideration” as “any amount that is payable for a supply by operation of law.” ... The King, 2022 TCC 141 under ETA – 123(1) – consideration. ...