Search - 制暴无限杀机 下载

After having noted (at para. 15) that the word “document” (used in s. 288(1)), was effectively defined in ETA s. 123(1) to include “any other thing containing information, whether in writing or in any other form ” (her emphasis), she also rejected (at para. 22) the contention of Tellza that “the request for records in an electronically readable format, along with the system administrator’s user ID and password, where applicable, falls outside the scope of the inspection power in the ETA s 288(1).” ...

Canada, 2021 FCA 182-- summary under Income-Producing Purpose Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 18- Subsection 18(1)- Paragraph 18(1)(a)- Income-Producing Purpose essential certainty that a film would be resold under an “option” before it generated any revenue established that s. 18(1)(a) not satisfied Hogan J had found that a tax shelter partnership, which had funded the prints and advertising expenses for films that it had purchased from Twentieth Century Fox, had not incurred such expenses for an income-producing purpose because there was no real prospect that Fox would not exercise its “options” to repurchase the films – and thus no real prospect that the films would generate revenue to the partnership. ...

A court should give significant consideration to amendments which further the ability of the trial court to determine the questions in controversy …. ...

In the case of a lease, there can be no assignment of the lease to the limited partnership – it must be assigned to the general partner. ...

Owen J rejected the CIBC position- that such loss was deemed by s. 39(2) to be a capital loss from foreign currency and therefore was excluded from the application of the s. 40(3.6) stop-loss rule, which applied only if the loss were viewed as having arisen from the disposition of the subsidiary’s shares – indicating that this position was inconsistent with a statement in the BMO case that: “[t]he gain or loss arising as a result of a disposition of a particular property was (and still is) determined under subsection 40(1)” before any application of s. 39(2). ...

In finding that it was an EBP, he cited (at para. 29) Oldman for the proposition that “[o]rdinarily … an Act of Parliament must prevail over inconsistent or conflicting subordinate legislation,” and then stated (at para. 30): In this case, it is not possible to reconcile the two provisions as they apply to the D2L Employee Trust. ...

In rejecting their submission (at para. 8) “that 201 was merely a conduit for their money” so that (similarly to Borys) 201 had received the funds from them on behalf of Dandy, Graham J drew an adverse inference from their failure to call a key witness, and noted (at para. 10) and that, during the audit “the Appellants reiterated that their loans had been made to 201” and it” was only when their claims were denied that the Appellants first raised the idea that they had actually lent money to Dandy or Indiva [the other small business corporation]” (para. 12) Graham J concluded (at para. 30): … Had they structured their affairs differently, they may have been successful in claiming ABILs, but in tax law form matters. ...

The judge found that the affidavit contained no express statement to that effect nor did it implicitly establish that requirement …. ...

The reliability criteria is satisfied only if the contents of the document sought to be admitted into evidence are trustworthy by reason of the way the document came into existence and the circumstances allow the judge to assess its reliability …. ...

As Justice Rand wrote, “[t]he capital machinery within and by means of which the business earning the income is carried on is distinct from that business itself” (Tip Top Tailors …). ...