Search - 侵犯公民个人信息罪 交易明细 计算条数

However, although in form Veracel was the larger corporation, essentially all its assets were the subscription-receipt cash proceeds – and “There was no scenario under which Veracel would have been allowed to retain the money…” (para. 53). ...

This general rule has only one exception, which is the case in which the question before the court has an inevitable answer …. ...

Gleason JA also rejected a submission that the Tax Court had focused insufficiently on whether there had been a corporate intent to impoverish the corporations, stating (at para. 44) that “this Court … [has] found that a shareholder benefit was conferred without any determination having been made as to the corporation’s intent” and (at para. 45) “even if intent to impoverish the corporation were required, such intent cannot be equated with a controlling shareholder’s subjective intent and most especially not with an intent that was formulated [as in the case here] after the corporate expenditure was engaged”. ...

After noting (at para. 38) that such a double increase would represent “an absurd result,” Noël CJ stated (at para. 48): [T]he appellant’s partnership interest had already been acquired when the shopping centres were transferred, thereby eliminating any possibility that, in addition to the subsection 97(2) adjustment, the partnership interest could be increased under section 54 by the “cost”, i.e. the fair market value, of the transferred property …. ...

In further rejecting a taxpayer submission based on no reassessment having been issued to bring the 2003 tax payable back from zero, as per the 2010 nil assessment, to the amount initially assessed, he stated (at paras. 77-78): … Markevich makes it clear that an excessive refund can be assessed even if the power to issue a reassessment for the year pursuant to subsection 152(4) has expired. ...

The following question was posed under Rule 58 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure): 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) …. ...

. … They are an exchange device because they may be used as consideration for property or services in the same way as money or a gift certificate. ...

. … Further, once the respondents were swayed to buy into WTC’s plan by the thought of turning an unexpected profit out of their crystallized tax liability through what they viewed as a risk-free exercise, they became the instruments through which WTC, acting as the sole mastermind, would lay its hands on the $1.3 million [equal to the tax liability], isolate it with the remaining cash in the subsidiaries and share it with the respondents in the proportion that it imposed. ...

(r.5) of an exclusion from a financial service for the delivery of property “in conjunction” with one of the listed services, was applicable agreed (at para. 56) with the view of Hogan J that “the addition of new paragraphs (r.4) and (r.5) to the definition of financial service … raises a new issue of whether, in light of these new provisions, PC Bank was providing a financial service to CIBC” i.e., the 2009 Decision and this appeal did not deal with an identical issue ...

Furthermore, since in light of s. 251(6)(b) “a marriage ends on the death of one of the individuals … [t]o have the same rules apply to individuals in a common-law partnership, that relationship would also have to cease upon the death of one of the partners” (para. 44). ...