Search - 制暴无限杀机 下载

This provision would have deemed the shares of Alta Canada to be immovable property (thereby permitting the gain from their disposition to be subject to Canadian capital gains tax) on the basis that they derived their value principally from immovable property situated in Canada, subject to an exclusion which deemed the underlying licences not to be immovable property if they were property of Alta Canada “in which the business of the company … was carried on.” ...

. … The situation is one in which the mistake should be corrected by a reassessment rather than by finding the assessment to be void. ...

. … [T]he words of the core definition [of partnership in the Partnership Act 1890] are wide enough to render the recipient of payments in a fixed sum a partner provided that there is a business, that it is carried on with a view to profit and, crucially for present purposes, that he is carrying it on in common with another or others. ...

.”), and (at para. 25): [T]he right to deduct, once it has arisen, is retained even if the intended economic activity was not carried out and, therefore, did not give rise to taxed transactions …. ...

…The Officer’s literal interpretation tends to frustrate both a purposive construction of section 142 and the intent of the ETA to tax consumption of goods in Canada … [and] appears to lead to a result which is at odds with the equitable underpinnings of subsection 23(2) of the FAA. ...

. … [I]t is because interest is, by its nature, symmetrical that the Judge was correct in interpreting subsection 16(1) in the way that he did. ...

In finding that the Tax Court had not committed a palpable and overriding error in this regard Webb JA stated (at para. 43): If the transactions are viewed as only the permits being transferred from Kinderock to the limited partnership and then by the limited partnership to Devonian, … the permits would not be used in an active business being carried on by the limited partnership as they would be transferred immediately upon being received by the limited partnership. ...

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). ...

. … PCI justifiably submitted that the position adopted by the ARQ, that the SADI Agreement was a forgivable loan given that the required repayments were a function of the growth in future revenues (so that the obligation to repay depended on the occurrence of an uncertain and future event), was a position which was relied upon in the dissent and rejected by the majority in McLarty. ...

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