Search - 制暴无限杀机 下载

13 December 2018- 12:06am Jayco – Tax Court of Canada finds that the taxpayer has no remedy in a costs award for LC fees paid to secure its GST/HST obligation until reversed Email this Content After its successful appeal of a GST/HST assessment, Jayco sought to include, in the costs recoverable from the Crown, the $1.4 million paid by it to JP Morgan in order to obtain a letter of credit to secure the GST/HST it owed until the assessment was reversed. In rejecting this claim, D’Auray J stated: In essence, Jayco is submitting that the Minister ought to have exercised her discretion differently and not taken any collection action on the GST/HST assessed. … This Court does not have jurisdiction to review the Minister’s exercise of that power—that jurisdiction rests with the Federal Court. … The Rules are clear that disbursements will only be awarded if they are essential to the conduct of the proceedings. … The interest was not paid by Jayco to establish that the Minister’s assessment was incorrect …. ...

14 April 2024- 10:11pm Kute Knit – Quebec Court of Appeal confirms denial of supervisory SR&ED salary claims under Reg. 2900(2)(b) which were asserted rather than proven Email this Content The taxpayer, which was acknowledged by the ARQ to be engaged in SR&ED, had claimed percentages (ranging from 15% to 75%) of the salaries incurred during its 2011 and 2012 taxation years for various management and supervisory employees as being the times that they were directly supervising the prosecution of SR&ED within the meaning of the Quebec equivalent of Reg. 2900(2)(b). ... Other than this table, the appellant did not file supporting documents regarding the percentages set out therein, be they time sheets, SR&ED progress reports, correspondence, minutes of meetings, internal notes or emails related to these tasks, nor did it … call any of the employees from these two groups as witnesses to support these percentages …. The Court found no reviewable error in the finding below that the taxpayer had thus failed to “demolish” the ARQ assessments by making out a prima facie case, that the ARQ’s premise — of the taxpayer not having shown that the reported portions of each employee’s salary could reasonably be attributed to the prosecution of SR&ED — was false. ...

7 February 2023- 12:04am Marchessault – Court of Quebec finds that frequent visits by an Alberta worker (without a permanent Alberta home) to his Quebec parents and friends did not establish Quebec residence Email this Content The taxpayer started in 2006 to work exclusively at a succession of pipeline-construction jobs in Alberta (or, on occasion, in B.C.) in all but about three or four of the winter months- during which he would visit his parents and friends in Quebec (while generally staying in a hotel), or travel to warmer locations. ... Marchessault must deprive himself of the opportunities afforded by his mode of life to visit his parents in order to break his ties of residence to Quebec. … Mr. ... However, the … [quoting Thomson] “spatial bounds within which he [spent] his life” were within Alberta throughout the Period …. ...

5 February 2025- 8:02am Bell Canada – Federal Court of Appeal finds that Ontario electricity suppliers made single supplies of electricity notwithstanding separate regulatory and delivery charges Email this Content Bell Canada was required as a result of ETA s. 236.01 and the related regulation to recapture 100% of the input tax credits that it claimed in respect of the 8% Ontario HST that it paid on the consideration for the supplies to it in Ontario of electricity. ... In affirming this finding, Boivin JA distinguished Kevin Davis Dentistry, which gave effect to the expressed Parliamentary intent to “provide for different tax treatment of supplies of orthodontic appliances and orthodontic service” whereas, here, the Ontario regulations did “not amount to as clear an indicator of Parliament’s intent as the GST Act did in Kevin Davis Dentistry ”. ... Canada, 2025 FCA 27 under ETA s. 123(1) – supply. ...

12 July 2020- 11:15pm Matthew Macisaac Consulting – Tax Court dismisses request for Rule 58 determination that reporting gains as on capital rather than income account was not a “misrepresentation” Email this Content The taxpayer was reassessed for quite a number of taxation years for which the main substantive issue was whether dispositions of shares in an offshore fund were on capital account – but many of the earlier years were beyond the normal reassessment period. ... In dismissing the motion, she stated: I cannot agree with the Appellant’s proposition … that a question of income versus capital necessarily amounts to a difference in opinion. … [T]he factual circumstances of the appeal will determine whether the issue of income versus capital is purely a difference of opinion or not. … The question of whether a misrepresentation under subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i) contemplates fact only or mixed-law-and-fact, should properly remain with the trier of fact to determine in conjunction with the related substantive issues. ...

He stated: [T]he appellant spent almost all of his time playing poker. … Despite his unusual lifestyle and his propensity to ridicule his opponents, the appellant was a serious businessman. … The appellant adopted objective standards of risk management and minimization. ... At this level of winnings by the appellant over such a long period of time, I am satisfied that the appellant had a reasonable expectation of being able to make a living at playing poker …. ... The King, 2023 CCI 12 under s. 3(a) – business source. ...

Each objected – but no appeal to the Tax Court had yet been launched. ... Pikes had never been paid for by them, contrary to s. 23(3) of the OBCA), stating: … [T]he Tax Court has jurisdiction to interpret s. 23(3) of the OBCA. … Parliament has created a specific court with expertise in tax matters and has created a specific process to address tax issues. ... Summary of Mandel v. 1909975 Ontario Inc., 2020 ONSC 5343 under General Concepts – Rectification. ...

11 December 2019- 11:48pm 626468 New Brunswick – Federal Court of Appeal finds that safe income from asset sale was reduced by accrued, but not yet payable, taxes on the gain Email this Content An individual rolled his apartment building into a Newco in consideration for a mortgage assumption and shares with nominal paid-up capital, and then rolled those shares into a new Holdco. Following the realization shortly thereafter by Newco of a taxable capital gain and recapture of depreciation on a sale of the building, Newco increased the adjusted cost base to Holdco of its shares by effecting a series of s. 84(1) dividends (including a capital dividend) – following which the individual sold his shares of Holdco to a third party for a sale price based on the amount of cash sitting in Newco. ... Webb JA stated: Both the fair market value of the shares and the portion of the resulting capital gain that would be attributable to the income earned or realized would reflect the tax liability that, although not payable immediately, would eventually have to be paid. … This tax liability would not disappear if, as contemplated by subsection 55(2) … the shares of Tri-Holdings would have been sold immediately before the dividend in question. ...

6 May 2019- 11:59pm Colitto – Tax Court of Canada finds that a director’s s. 227.1 liability cannot flow through to a transferee under s. 160 unless the s. 227.1(2) claim procedures have first occurred Email this Content The taxpayer’s husband (Mr. ... Colitto’s liability arose pursuant to section 227.1 … in his 2011 taxation year and was not in respect of his 2008 taxation year” – so that the condition in s. 160(1)(e)(ii) quoted above was not satisfied. ...

In finding that the chambers judge had not erred in denying rectification of the written terms of the proposal, Wilcock JA noted (at para. 68) the finding in Fairmont that “rectification requires the parties to show an antecedent agreement with respect to the term or terms for which rectification is sought” and stated: [I]t is difficult to see how it can be said that the creditors would have understood the Proposal to be anything other than what was presented to them. … There was insufficient evidence of a common understanding amongst the appellant and its creditors on the matter in dispute …. ... It will not prejudice creditors or third parties … [nor] is [it] a collateral attack upon a [CRA] decision that should be challenged elsewhere. ... Summary of Williams Moving & Storage (B.C.) Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2024 BCCA 160 under General Concepts – Rectification. ...