Search - 侵犯公民个人信息罪 交易明细 计算条数

., 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 … distinctions made by the regulations based on the area of voyages taken cannot be supported by the bare language of the section …. ... Either the Court can sever and annul the impugned portion where it can be determined that that portion was intended by the legislator to be cumulative, not dependent on other provisions, and was "enacted distributively and not with the intention that either all or none should come into force" …. ... However, he concluded (at para. 41) that “for the same rationale as prevailed in Schachter [[1992] 2 S.C.R. 679], the best solution would appear to be a delayed declaration of the invalidity of the Ships Stores Regulations ” so as to “enable the Governor in Council to devise a scheme which is legally defensible given the terms of its regulation-making authority under the Excise Tax Act.” ...

. … [T]he use of the phrase “directly or indirectly” evidences Parliament’s intent “to capture any and all methods through which a transaction could increase” the fair market value of a TFSA The TCC had allowed the appeals for the 2010 and 2012 taxations years on the basis that the phrase “directly or indirectly” in s. 207.01(1)(b) should be narrowly interpreted; and that the increase in the fair market value of the TFSA in 2010 and in 2012 was not attributable to the swap transactions, but rather to favourable market conditions in those years. In allowing the Crown’s cross-appeal for those years, Dawson JA stated (at paras 75, 77 and 82): [T]he Tax Court’s concern about “when or how far into the future an advantage … will be considered as attributable to” abusive transactions did not justify a restrictive interpretation of the definition of advantage. … The ability to waive an advantage tax and reset an individual’s unused TFSA contribution room are the mechanisms intended to address the future impact of abusive transactions. … The anti-avoidance purpose of sections 207.01 and 207.05 supports a broad interpretation of the definition of “advantage”. … [W]hile the increase in value in the TFSA in 2010 and 2012 was directly attributable to the performance of the shares held in the TFSA each year, it was indirectly attributable to the swap transactions which increased the number of shares held in the TFSA and their value. ...

He then stated (at paras. 15-17, TaxInterpretations translation): [T]he TCC scrupulously followed the approach … required of it under Safeway. In particular, it concluded from the evidence before it that the appellant's sole motivation at the time of the acquisition of the land in question was clearly to resell it at a profit, noting in this regard that the appellant had never intended to carry out the development project desired by the City of Mascouche. … With respect to the geographic location and zoning of the lands in question, the TCC noted that they were located in close proximity to the future train station … [and] that the City of Mascouche had undertaken, in order to facilitate the implementation of the development project on the axis of such station, to modify its urban plan and by-laws, to achieve, before the end of 2007, free circulation on the land and to complete certain infrastructure work. ... Finally, the Court emphasized that the acquisition of the lands in question involved a significant commercial risk to the appellant, since the consolidation of the lots required to carry out the development desired by the City of Mascouche depended, among other things, on the expropriation of land owned by third parties …. ...

Canada, 2017 FCA 156-- summary under Paragraph 6204(1)(b) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Regulations- Regulation 6204- Subsection 6204(1)- Paragraph 6204(1)(b) employees enjoyed the ½ deduction on exercising their stock options notwithstanding an immediate sale of the acquired shares to the controlling shareholder The taxpayers were management employees of a software company (“Cybectec”), which was a wholly-owned subsidiary of a holding company (“9135-8184”). ... This shows that for the purposes of paragraph 110(1)(d) of the ITA, it is not the imposition of an holding period that ensures the existence of a risk element, but the particular characteristics of a prescribed share and the minimum price at which the option must be exercised. … [S]ubparagraph 6204(1)(a)(iv)…prevents the deduction from being claimed with respect to shares which embody an obligation to redeem. Paragraph 6204(1)(b) broadens the scope of this disqualification by extending it to situations where, for instance, an established practice makes the redemption of the shares reasonably predictable. … It seems clear that these two provisions complete one another and that the latter is intended to prevent employees from benefitting from the deduction in circumstances where they can have their shares redeemed at will…. ...

This was accomplished by setting up a sandwich structure immediately after the acquisition, under which a new Canadian unlimited liability company, capitalized with notes and high-PUC shares, held the shares of a U.S. corporation holding Univar Canada – so that such U.S. corporation could distribute the shares of Univar Canada (on a Treaty-exempt basis) to its controlling Canadian purchaser (the ULC) without technically being affected by the s. 212.1(1) deemed dividend rule. ... Thus … the purpose of section 212.1 … was not to prevent the removal from Canada, by an arm’s length purchaser of a Canadian corporation, of any surplus that such Canadian corporation had accumulated prior to the acquisition of control. ... Whether the surplus of the Canadian corporation is removed by completing the alternative transactions described … above or by completing the transactions that were done in this case, the same surplus is removed from Canada. ...

The remuneration would have been paid for services rendered as part of the commercial activities of Look or the termination of those activities …. … [T]here would be a connection between the litigation to establish (after the registrant has stopped making taxable supplies) that there was an amount of overpaid compensation (and collecting that amount) and the termination of the commercial activity of the registrant because that compensation would be related to services rendered while the registrant was making taxable supplies. Therefore, there is a connection between the termination of Look’s commercial activity and the legal services acquired in relation to the litigation against the Former Executives that would be sufficient to permit Look to claim the input tax credits …. ... Because subsection 141.1(3) of the Act is the more specific provision that only applies in certain situations, it will override subsection 141.01(2) …. ...

Furthermore, respecting the Crown’s argument that s. 150(2), which expressly provided that s. 150(1) did not apply to imported supplies, implied an intention the s. 150(1) would apply to the exported services of WMI, Noël C.J. stated (at para. 50): [S]ervices in contrast with tangible goods cross the border only in a virtual sense so that the exigible tax on imported services cannot be collected in the usual way – i.e., at the time of entry when the goods are released …. ... As explained in the commentaries which accompanied the amendment to subsection 150(2), “[a]pplying the closely-related group election to those supplies would result in both parties to the election avoiding tax altogether …” …. ...

Before dismissing the taxpayer’s appeal of 2009, Dawson JA stated (at para. 50): … [T]he use of the phrase “directly or indirectly” evidences Parliament’s intent “to capture any and all methods through which a transaction could increase” the fair market value of a TFSA. In allowing the Crown’s appeal of 2010 and 2012, she stated (at paras. 75, 82): [T]he Tax Court’s concern about “when or how far into the future an advantage … will be considered as attributable to” abusive transactions did not justify a restrictive interpretation of the definition of advantage. Such concern is intended to be addressed by other legislative provisions, including the Minister’s ability to waive or cancel advantage taxes (subsection 207.06(2) of the Act) and to determine the unused TFSA contribution room (subsection 207.01(1) of the Act and more particularly the definition of “unused TFSA contribution room” as enacted in S.C., 2010, c. 25, subsections 57(5) and 57(8). … The ability to waive an advantage tax and reset an individual’s unused TFSA contribution room are the mechanisms intended to address the future impact of abusive transactions. … [W]hile the increase in value in the TFSA in 2010 and 2012 was directly attributable to the performance of the shares held in the TFSA each year, it was indirectly attributable to the swap transactions which increased the number of shares held in the TFSA and their value. ...

This conclusion … necessarily flows from section 2.2 of the loan agreements which made each of the appellants’ entire donation conditional on the loan being approved by the lender …. ... [T]he Tax Court judge was also bound to hold that “no part of [the interconnected transaction] can be considered a gift that the appellant[s] gave in the expectation of no return” …. It follows that there was no gift whether the matter is considered from a common law or a civil law perspective. … In response to a further submission that “it is possible to make a ‘“profitable” gift’ due to the favourable tax consequences that some gifts provide” (para. 54), Noël CJ stated (at para 60): [T]the fact that a tax benefit is received as a result of making a gift cannot, in and of itself, invalidate the gift as to hold otherwise would mean that Parliament would have spoken in vain in providing for tax benefits consequential on making qualified gifts. ...