Search - 侵犯公民个人信息罪 交易明细 计算条数

Following the realization shortly thereafter by Newco of a taxable capital gain and recapture of depreciation on a sale of the building, Newco increased the adjusted cost base to Holdco of its shares by effecting a series of s. 84(1) dividends (including a capital dividend) – following which the individual sold his shares of Holdco to a third party for a sale price based on the amount of cash sitting in Newco. In connection with finding that the safe income of Newco was reduced by the amount of corporate income tax ultimately payable by it on its gain on the building sale, notwithstanding that at the time of sale, no income taxes had yet become payable, Webb JA first stated (at para. 39): I agree with … Deuce Holdings that it would only be logical that any arm’s length third party purchaser of shares would take into account any existing tax liability of the corporation, even though such liability may not be payable until a later date. He then stated (at para. 52): Both the fair market value of the shares and the portion of the resulting capital gain that would be attributable to the income earned or realized would reflect the tax liability that, although not payable immediately, would eventually have to be paid. … ...

., “the capital investments by the Loblaw group [,] were not part of Glenhuron’s conduct of business” Woods JA stated (at paras. 82, 84-85): For purposes of the ITA, the term “business” generally means “something occupying the time and attention and labour of a man for the purpose of profit” …. ... [T]his approach is consistent with long-standing jurisprudence which draws a distinction between “capital to enable [people] to conduct their enterprises” and “the activities by which they earn their income” …. ...

Eisbrenner’s submission, … he only had to raise a prima facie case, which he submitted was a lower standard than the balance of probabilities. Therefore, … even though Mr. Eisbrenner had pled the fact that he owned the pharmaceuticals, he was not required to prove this fact on a balance of probabilities. ... Likewise, … Mr. Morrison…. ...

It has no application where, as here, each of the transactions was entered into in the pursuit of a bona fide non-tax purpose …. Beyond this, the concept of “series of transactions” is foreign to subsection 160(1). … [S]ubsection 160(1) contains no such specific language. Instead, Parliament resorted to the all-encompassing words set out in its introductory words …. ...

Burke was entitled to none of the benefits, she stated (at paras. 116-117): This, as well as other factors identified … at paragraph 142 of Vavilov such as concerns about delay, fairness to the parties, costs to the parties and the efficient use of public resources, support a finding that the matter should not be remitted to the Appeal Division for redetermination. … Declining to remit a matter to the administrative decision maker may also be appropriate where it becomes evident to the Court that a particular outcome is inevitable …. ...

This occurred – the offer of another public company (“Inco” – the 25% minority shareholder) was accepted by the Diamond Fields shareholders, thereby triggering the payment by Diamond Fields of the break fee. The break fee did not qualify as proceeds of disposition of a Falconbridge right to merge, as she did not consider there to be such a right: Diamond Fields could not promise the acceptance by its shareholders of the Falconbridge offer nor could it fetter the fiduciary obligations of its board – there was no capital gain. ...

Canada, 2018 FCA 121-- summary under Subsection 66(12.6) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 66- Subsection 66(12.6) only a PBC can renounce In the course of a general discussion, Webb JA stated (at para. 5): Although subsection 66(12.6) of the ITA only refers to a “corporation”, since only a “ principal-business corporation ” can issue a flow-through share (as a result of the definition of flow-through share), only a principal-business corporation can renounce CEE under subsection 66(12.6) of the ITA. ...

Rothstein J.A. stated (at pp. 19-20, 24-25): It is wrong to assume … that the fair market value of a group of items is necessarily the aggregate of the price that could be obtained for individual items in the group. … For example, if items are sold in large volumes in a wholesale market, the fair market value of the volumes sold in that market will be less than the aggregate of the values of the items considered individually that make up those volumes. … When a court is required to determine the fair market value of an asset for which there is no market that permits a direct comparison, it may be necessary to consider the transactions in some other market, subject to such adjustments as may be appropriate to the case, such as a blockage or volume discount. ...

Akbari … never intended to occupy the property as his primary residence.... … It is the relationship of the person acquiring the complex to the builder—one of purchase and sale—that is relevant, not the relationship between co-purchasers. ... Akbari was acquiring the complex only as a trustee is of no consequence. … [S]ection 254 [does not] provide any exception for trustees.... ...

. … [I]n light of ADC’s near-total economic dependence on Seawind Corp., the fact that the owner of the latter company dictated (and was able to dictate) the terms of the relationship between the two companies is a very relevant factor in determining whether the two were dealing at arm’s length. ... Silva’s ability to make the two companies disregard the terms of the development agreement – as he decided to do when he unilaterally decided that the 5% mark-up [under the Development Agreement] would not be paid to ADC. …[I]t would be difficult to imagine a stronger indicator of a non-arm’s length relationship than the fact that a company is allowed to operate out of another’s facility for free, without a lease. … ...