Search - 侵犯公民个人信息罪 交易明细 计算条数

In rejecting the taxpayer’s submission that CRA’s use of “stolen” information violated the taxpayer’s Charter rights, Russell J stated (at para. 64): The issues raised by the Applicant on this point were addressed … by the Quebec Court of Appeal [Berger, 2016 QCCA 226]. … The Quebec Court of Appeal affirmed the Quebec Superior Court’s decision that Mr. ...

Because it is not at all clear whether the Letter was directed to the Respondents individually or their connected entities, the first requirement of section 231.7 … for obtaining a compliance order has not been satisfied …. ...

., if the decision was unreasonable) – although, of course, the substantive question of whether the requested adjustment was correct could not be reviewed by her. ... In any event, CRA had no legal obligation to issue a reassessment notice following the taxpayer request – that was a decision that was within its discretion (s. 152(4) used the word “may”). ...

In dismissing the taxpayer’s application for judicial review of the decision to impose the penalties, Shirzad J stated (at paras 37 and 38): … If taxpayers could re-characterize taxable income or benefits as non-taxable benefits in their applications to the VDP and thereby escape penalties from future audits for having “disclosed” the amounts in this application, it would be contrary to the purpose of the VDP and its public policy rationale, which is meant to promote compliance with Canada’s tax laws …. ...

In rejecting the addition of this condition, Southcott J stated (at paras. 34, 37): … EEIGI is seeking this relief without having articulated with any precision a basis in either fact or law for its concern that it may in the future face dissemination of the Required Information in a manner that offends the Charter. … [R]equiring CRA to disclose, in the course of an investigation, the fact that the investigation is taking place could compromise the investigation. ...

Southcott J stated (at paras. 34, 37): … EEIGI is seeking this relief without having articulated with any precision a basis in either fact or law for its concern that it may in the future face dissemination of the Required Information in a manner that offends the Charter. … [R]equiring CRA to disclose, in the course of an investigation, the fact that the investigation is taking place could compromise the investigation. ...

. … Slattery … [states]: Section 241 reflects the importance of ensuring respect for a taxpayer's privacy interests, particularly as that interest relates to a taxpayer's finances. ...

In rejecting BMONB’s claim of privilege, Kane J stated (at paras. 108 and 116): As … found in Information Commissioner [2013 FCA 104], not all end products of legal advice fall on the continuum of solicitor-client communications; an end product is not privileged “except to the extent that [it] communicates the very legal advice given by counsel” (at para 31). … The Court’s review of the legal opinions does not serve to establish that the MSPM falls on the continuum of solicitor-client communications. ...

. … The Federal Court of Appeal discussed the principles of procedural fairness in Canadian Pacific Railway v. ... It would be problematic if an a priori decision as to whether the standard of review is correctness or reasonableness generated a different answer to what is a singular question that is fundamental to the concept of justice – was the party given a right to be heard and the opportunity to know the case against them? ...

Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 313-- summary under Excess TFSA Amount Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 207.01- Subsection 207.01(1)- Excess TFSA Amount current year's contributions were not offset by current year's withdrawals Although the facts are more intricate, they essentially involved the taxpayer, in early 2021, promptly withdrawing $29,000 from his TFSA when he discovered (before being so notified by CRA) that he had over-contributed by $20,000 – then shortly thereafter, contributing a further $6,000 to his TFSA, not realizing that under the “excess TFSA amount” definition, such contributions were not offset by his “excess” TFSA withdrawal earlier in the year of $9,000 because it is only a prior, not a current, year’s withdrawals that restore contribution room. ... CRA denied his request for relief under s. 207.06(1) on the basis that the removal of the excess contributions did not occur within a reasonable time frame – but provided no explanation as to why the $9,000 excess withdrawal in 2021 did not offset the further 2021 contributions. ...