Search - 制暴无限杀机 下载

Bocock J found (at paras. 10, 21): Non est factum is available where a person is not capable of both reading and sufficiently understanding a document. … … Anna from and after her diagnosis date, lacked mental capacity to execute or did not execute and file the 2003 filings…. Therefore, the notices of reassessments responsive to the 2003 filings … were void. … [T]he reassessments were consequential to invalid or unlawful filings and issued by the Minister under innocent mistake of fact. Accordingly, no objection was required to the void reassessments. … Bocock J went on to vacate those reassessments. ...

Visser J found that CIBC received a taxable service from Aeroplan, so that it was unnecessary for Visser J to consider the second argument – but he nonetheless did so, and found that the Aeroplan Miles did not qualify as gift certificates, stating (at paras 80, 83): … Parliament intended a gift certificate to be an equivalent to money, and to have attributes similar to money. Therefore in my view, a gift certificate must have a stated monetary value expressed on its face physically or retrievable electronically. … … Aeroplan Miles … fatally, they do not have a stated monetary value. ...

IX, s. 1 by virtue of the exclusion in para. 1(a) thereof for a “service [that] relates to (a) a debt that arises from … (ii) the lending of money that is primarily for use in Canada”. ... He then stated (at paras. 79, 81-84): [T]he jurisprudence has recognized a clear distinction between the granting of credit and the lending of money. … Dahl … v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2005 BCSC 126 … affirmed in 2006 CBCA 369 … noted that because the “cardholder is permitted to defer payment of the debt, credit is advanced on the date of the purchase or service” and “this deferral of debt results in an extension of credit” … [U]nlike a loan, “such credit is not initially paid out to the debtor in the form of money.” … As indicated in Dahl … “the cardholder’s liability to the merchant is discharged by the merchant’s acceptance of the credit card” and “the Bank becomes liable to the merchant, and the cardholder becomes liable to the Bank.” ...

Leaving aside the discretionary component of ss. 38(3) of the above legislation, … nowhere [in section 253 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act] is it stated that non-compliance with the statute voids a reported dividend for the purposes of a section 160 assessment. … Larouche … 2010 FCA 32 … stated that a reported dividend, even if not in compliance with the provincial statute, remains valid for tax purposes…. …[I]t is difficult to see how the legal treatment of a dividend under corporate and civil law would prevent Parliament from regarding that dividend, for tax purposes, as a transfer of property without consideration when made by persons who are not dealing at arm's length. … In also rejecting the taxpayer’s argument that a portion of the dividends were in fact loan repayments, he stated (at paras. 25-26): However, this does not change the fact that the dividends … were reported as dividends …. ...

An affidavit provided on behalf of Burlington stated (paras. 26, 34): [T]hose documents that relate to the guarantees and the guarantee fees, would have been stored in three cities, across a number of separate corporate departments: … [E]ach of these departments maintains its own records and creates its own indexes as a means to locate files within its stored records. ... The same logic applies to the Burlington’s retention policy. … … [U]nless Burlington can positively affirm that a relevant document no longer exists, it will have to search for the document.... ... Respecting documents requested from non-resident members of the corporate group, she stated (at para. 81): I adopt the comments of Justice Campbell Miller in the HSBC Bank Canada ’s decision where he ordered the Appellant to obtain the documents from its parent. … … I have no hesitation in concluding that it is reasonable to expect the Parents to respond positively to relevant inquiries. … ...

The evidence rather establishes that ISAF was set up by United Nations Security Council …. … [E]ven if ISAF were to be considered a subsidiary body of NATO … [and] despite the fact that ISAF employs civilian personnel like the Appellant, it is still a military body. ...

I also accept … that he used these lines of credit to repay his family and friends for money he borrowed to urgently finance the renovation of 1049304. The fact that the funds in the lines of credit were commingled amongst the three purposes of repaying the private loans, the renovation project, and construction project is insignificant because all are eligible uses in the circumstances. … … Mr. Brown … did not receive dividends from either corporation. … I do not believe that either corporation would have met the statutory solvency test for payment of dividends. ...

Hogan J first noted (at paras 111-112): … The Appellant observes that subsection 74.5(11) does not refer to a “series” of transactions... ... Mady must be determined solely by reference to that transaction. … [T]he transfer of the shares from her to Dr. ... Mady. … … [Per] Groupe Honco … “one of the main purposes” … “…implies that a taxpayer may have more than one main motive in acquiring shares”. ...

CRA assessed him advantage tax under s. 207.05 equalling 100% of the appreciation of the shares within his TFSA before the shares’ sale – and following a Federal Court action by him, proposed to reduce the rate of advantage tax to his marginal federal and provincial tax rate. ... He also found that s. 207.05 did not infringe on the provincial right to make laws respecting “Property and Civil Rights”, stating (at paras 85, 91): The Appellant, in my opinion, wrongly conflates the severity or high rate of taxation with legal confiscation or seizure. … … [T]he anti-avoidance element the Appellant refers to … is …part of or entwined in the raising of revenue by a system of taxation contemplated by subsection 91(3) of the Constitution and thus is, in pith and substance, taxation. ...

In finding that such claim was barred by the four year limitation period s. 225(4)(b), Russell J stated (at paras 11 and 14): … [E]ven on the basis that Garmeco did unequivocally state that IHI would have been the proper claimant, that would not mean that IHI now can point to the Garmeco decision and require the Minister to credit it with the claimed ITCs. … … [T]he wording of paragraph 225(4)(b)… is drafted very restrictively … making clear that it is “the person” who is claiming the ITCs, and not any other person, including a person who had previously claimed, who must abide by the statutory four year limitation. ...