Search - 侵犯公民个人信息罪 交易明细 计算条数

Walker J first found that the action was brought beyond the two-year limitations period under s. 4 of the Limitations Act (Ontario) given that an employee at the law firm for the taxpayer had received a letter in 2015 from CRA showing the issuances of the refund cheques in 2006 and 2007, so that the taxpayer “knew of his loss … in sufficient detail to bring his claim for unjust enrichment by early July 2015.” ... He is deemed to have received the Notices of Assessment and Refund Cheques pursuant to subsection 248(7) …. ...

In explaining the significance of the distinction between these two alternatives, Pamel J had earlier noted the statement in IT-335R2 regarding s. 56(2) that “it is normally the … CRA … practice not to assess the same income twice. ...

. … While the Applicants take issue with the Directors General’s mindset, as focusing on the goal of collecting taxes, it was within the Director General’s discretion to be influenced significantly by the public interest in collection of taxes. … ...

There was a s. 171(1) “Billing Agent Election “election in place between them, so that Castle was responsible for the GST/HST reporting of CBS’s sales- and so that if CBS had bothered to register and file GST/HST returns (which it did not), they would have been nil returns (assuming that a s. 156 election applied to Castle’s sales to CBS – otherwise, Castle was required to charge GST/HST, with CBS effectively being required to claim ITCs). ... In particular, she stated (at para. 58): … The filing of the Billing Agent Election and the assumption by Castle of the administrative tasks of collection, reporting and remittance of CBS’s GST/HST does not affect the status of CBS as the supplier of the goods and services in respect of which the tax is collectible. ...

. … It is unclear from the Decision what, if any, factors have been considered [by the decision maker] … in this case. ...

The submission of Zeifmans- that judicial authorization should have been obtained pursuant to s. 231.2(3) given that the RFI extended to the Unnamed Persons – was rejected essentially because there was “no evidence in the record that the Unnamed Persons [we]re a current investigation target.” ... Pallota J also rejected the Crown’s position that Zeifmans’ position in this application represented an impermissible collateral attack on the prior administrative order (the requirement) given that inter alia the imposition of separate conditions under s. 231.7(1)(a) notwithstanding that a recipient of a requirement could apply for judicial review of the requirement “indicate[d] Parliament did not intend for judicial review to be the sole forum for considering whether the Minister properly exercised her authority in issuing the Requirement” (para. 66), the two proceedings had a different character (of a reasonableness review, contrasted to a substantive review of whether the s. 231.7 considerations were satisfied – see paras. 74, 81-82), and in the earlier proceeding, the Minister had failed to disclose that the Unnamed Persons in fact were being targeted. ...

The Minister refused on the basis that Cybernius’ T2 corporate income tax returns for 2013 and 2014 had not been filed – and that the credits also could not be used as Cybernius’ corporate income tax returns had not been filed within three years of the end of each relevant year. ... After noting the 90-day delay in ss. 225.1(1) and (2) for taking collection action, McVeigh J stated (at paras 45- 47): [I]f it is assumed the assessment dated December 18, 2006, and the reassessment on November 19, 2009, are valid …, the RTP on December 22, 2009, was statute barred since it was within 90 days of the reassessment. ...

In characterizing the legislative intent of section 142, the Officer chose to follow the express language of section 142 over the broader purpose of the ETA to tax the consumption of goods or services in Canada …. ... It is also consistent with past jurisprudence of this Court which has preferred the strict language of the ETA over its broader purpose …. ...

The Applicant submitted (at para. 30) that as he “came forward with a voluntary disclosure in a timely fashion … it was unreasonable for the Delegate to not exercise discretion in waiving the penalties.” In determining that the Decision was reasonable and fell well within the range of acceptable outcomes, McVeigh J stated (at paras 38, 39 and 43): It was well within the Applicant’s control to file his past tax returns in a timely manner. … It is not unreasonable for the Delegate to consider the Applicant’s past late filings as a negative factor in assessing whether the Applicant will be given the relief from penalties.... ...

. … [T]his Court has held that even when penalties were assessed as a result of accountant error, the Minister is not required to exercise her discretion …. ...