Search - 侵犯公民个人信息罪 交易明细 计算条数

Canada, 2020 FCA 97-- summary under Subsection 246(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 246- Subsection 246(1) the Cirque du Soleil’s bearing most of the $41.8M cost of a space trip for its controlling shareholder gave rise to a shareholder benefit The founder and controlling shareholder of Cirque du Soleil, had been found by the Tax Court to have received a taxable benefit under s. 15(1) (or alternatively, under s. 246(1)) equaling approximately 90% of the $41.8 million cost of sending him on a trip to the international space station (ISS) in September and October 2009, given that the cost was borne by his family holding company and then largely passed through to the top operating company (“Créations Méandres “) in the Cirque du Soleil group, but with there being a matching contribution of capital by the holding company to Créations Méandres so that independent shareholders would not bear any of the cost of the trip. ...

., 2020 FCA 125-- summary under Subsection 152(4) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 152- Subsection 152(4) nil assessment not subject to 3-year limitation in s. 152(4) In finding that a nil assessment was valid for s. 164(1) purposes notwithstanding that it had been issued (in 2010) more than three years after the previous (2003) reassessment, Noël CJ stated (at para. 58): Subsection 152(4) gives the Minister the power to “notify in writing any person […] that no tax is payable for the year”. ...

In this regard, he stated (at para. 47, citing Wild): [I]t is now established that the modification of tax attributes, such as an increase in a taxpayer’s CDA, does not give rise to a tax benefit unless and until a capital dividend is paid out of that account to a recipient capable of benefiting from its tax-free character …. ...

The following question was posed under Rule 58: Where the Minister has at all times concluded that no partnership existed, can the Minister issue a valid Notice of Determination in respect of that purported partnership under subsection 152(1.4) …. ...

In this regard, he noted (at para. 74) the statement in Symes that “Courts will … look for objective manifestations of purpose,” and then stated (at para. 76): [S]ubsequent actions or steps taken by Keybrand or [its parent] BWS could be used to either confirm or contradict Keybrand’s stated purpose in borrowing the funds to acquire the shares of Vidabode. ...

Since the TCC’s enhanced cost order (under Rule 147(7)) was wholly contingent on the order it made in the underlying action, when that order was reversed, its Rule 147(7) order was rendered a nullity – there was nothing for the Crown to appeal. ...

. … The Tax Court Judge was not bound by any admission that CIBC was paying for Aeroplan Miles in light of the agreement, which was properly tendered as evidence at the Tax Court hearing, and which clearly states that the payments made by CIBC were in consideration of Aeroplan “referring or arranging for Aeroplan Members and other members of the public to make Card Applications”. ...

. … The Tax Court Judge was not bound by any admission that CIBC was paying for Aeroplan Miles in light of the agreement, which was properly tendered as evidence at the Tax Court hearing, and which clearly states that the payments made by CIBC were in consideration of Aeroplan “referring or arranging for Aeroplan Members and other members of the public to make Card Applications”. ...

. … Evidence contradicting the taxpayer’s arguments included: Each house was listed for sale before the occupancy permit was obtained. ...

. … However, the self-supply rules do not apply if the conditions as set out in subsection 191(5) of the ETA are satisfied. ...