Search - 制暴无限杀机 下载

In rejecting this submission, Gleason JA stated (at paras. 15, 24): On its plain meaning, a deeming provision does not constitute an “election” or “appointment” …. ...

. … I see nothing in the text of paragraph (r.3) that suggests that a service that consists of processing authorization requests via an automated system as agent for the issuer of a credit card is excluded under paragraph (r.3). ...

Accordingly, even in the case of the lower threshold for a penalty under s. 162(7)(a), “the defence of due diligence has been established – that is, the appellant reasonably believed in a mistaken set of facts that if true would have made his act or omission to act innocent.” ...

In rejecting the position of the Crown that “nowhere was it written that the appellant was required to incur the recruitment expenses” (para. 21), St-Hilaire J stated (at paras. 30, 31, TaxInterpretations translation): [T]he employer's answer to question 1 on Form T2200 indicated that the appellant was required to pay the expenses incurred to perform the duties related to her work …. ...

A few days before the hearing of the appeal by his estate, its notice of appeal was amended to allege inter alia that Gagné had never been a director (given that the proper corporate procedures had not been followed for his appointment, including his consenting to such appointment. and there being an absence of any resolution appointing him) – an argument never made by Gagné. ...

Russell J indicated that Kuchta might technically be a nullity (because, as indicated in the comparable High-Crest decision, it had been decided by a substituted judge), but also indicated (a para. 42) that in Kuchta, “Graham, J. properly and diligently applied the textual, contextual and purposive analysis specified by … Canada Trustco in construing the meaning to be ascribed the term ‘spouse’ in paragraph 160(1)(a)” and that, in light of the principle of judicial comity, chose to follow the Kuchta interpretation so as to find that s. 160 applied to the taxpayer. ...

. … It is highly unlikely that Parliament would explicitly provide that any supply of an orthodontic appliance is zero-rated if the intention is that the supply is restricted to the wholesale level. ...

Russell J further stated (at paras. 36-37): [W]hether … false statements or omissions in a return justify a subsection 163(2) penalty is determinable at the time the return is filed. ...

. … Here, I find that 240 Ontario did have responsibility at law to make payments to IB from available funds, such responsibility arising from IB’s ownership of and authority over 240 Ontario. ...

Furthermore, the evidence presented (including by one of the vendors called by the Crown), including the high degree of leverage used to construct the building and the short time of ownership after major construction problems had been finally resolved, indicated that the construction and sale of the home had occurred as an adventure in the nature of trade – so that they were builders, and the sale was subject to HST. ...