Search - 制暴无限杀机 下载

. … The reasons and the judgment both deal with the rebate issue. Clearly the rebate issue has not been overlooked and has been adjudicated. … There is no question here of facts arising after the hearing. Furthermore, Jorré DJ found that even if that were not the case, there were two additional reasons that would have led to the same conclusion, stating (at paras 29, 34, 36, 47): What matters … is not what was intended but what was done. … I … asked “So you’re conceding the 27746 GST rebate?” ... Given that the rebate issue was conceded, we are clearly not in a situation where this Court should vary the outcome even if it could. … [B]efore any variation could be considered and even it could otherwise be varied, fairness would require the matter be reopened to explore what the $1,866 [in employment expenses claimed on line 212 and allowed by the Minister] was and whether the Appellant paid any GST or HST on the amount. ...

He quoted (at para. 61) from Coates, including statements therein that: [S]ubsection 191(5) … requires … a simple factual determination as to whether or not the property was used as a family home after it was substantially completed. … [T[he exception cannot be interpreted as requiring that the property have been built only for purely personal reasons. ... Swift has satisfied the test enunciated in Coates. … [E]ven under the Lacina [[1997] GSTC 69] test … the primary intention of Mr. ...

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). Furthermore, Owen J disagreed with the CIBC position, stating (at paras. 72-72, 137): [S]ubsection 39(2) was not required to address foreign currency fluctuations associated with acquisitions and dispositions of property other than foreign currency because subsection 40(1) read with due regard to the need to convert the amounts identified in that subsection into Canadian dollars already addressed such fluctuations and integrated them into the gain or loss computed under subsection 40(1). … [T]his fact and the fact … that extending subsection 39(2) to dispositions of property other than foreign currency raises difficult issues together strongly suggest that Parliament did not intend that subsection 39(2) apply to dispositions of property other than foreign currency. … In conclusion … subsection 39(2) as it read in 2007 was a stand-alone provision but Parliament did not intend that the subsection apply to dispositions of property other than foreign currency. ...

. … Regarding the nature of the segregated fund at issue, I conclude that the overarching feature was the life insurance component. ... The Minister assumed – incorrectly – that the segregated fund belonged in the same category as an RRSP or RRIF. ... Higgins had the right to expect that London Life – upon his death- would abide by its contractual obligation to transfer the residue of said fund to his two daughters in equal shares. ...

Ellis “as partial compensation for the termination of the Group Life Plan” and (at para. 103) that such payment “providing partial compensation the loss of the status of being a member of the Group Life Plan …constituted a benefit,” Sommerfeldt J stated (at paras. 121, 124): As explained by Bowman J in … Tsiaprailis … where, in addition to the general provision in paragraph 6(1)(a), there is “a specific [statutory provision] containing detailed conditions for the inclusion of an amount in income that would not otherwise be income” … the general provision cannot be used “to fill in all the gaps left by” the specific provision…. I have concluded that subsection 6(4) of the ITA and Part XXVII of the ITR are specific provisions designed to include in income certain amounts in respect of insurance coverage under a group term life insurance policy. … As those specific provisions have not captured the distributions paid in 2011 by the HWT to Ms. ...

The King, 2024 TCC 125-- summary under Paragraph 301(1.2)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 301- Subsection 301(1.2)- Paragraph 301(1.2)(a) taxpayer not precluded from raising an argument that the Minister was bound by an ITC method that it had described in detail in its pleadings The objection of the taxpayer (RBC) referred in detail to the prior acceptance by the Minister off its input tax credit methodology as accepted for purposes of ETA 141.02(20), but did not submit that the Minister was bound by this method for its 2012 fiscal year – an argument that its counsel did not raise until the opening arguments at trial – which the Crown did not object to until the closing arguments at the end of the trial. ... Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, 2003 FCA 471 (para. 22) (“ Potash Corp ”) and Devon Canada Corporation v. ...

Before confirming the resulting reassessments that treated $1.50 of the ticket prices as being zero-rated consideration for the honey or other food products, and the balance as consideration that was subject to tax, Boyle J indicated that s. 153(2) required that the “cost of admission to … the … forest must be reasonably divided between access to the labyrinth and other activities, and the mandatory purchase of a coupon to be exchanged for a honey or maple food product” (para. 8, TaxInterpretations translation) and then stated (at para. 19): Appellant was unable to present any valid reason why the value of the initial coupon should be other than $1.50, which is what it charged for the same coupons when purchased individually. ...

. … Parliament … deliberately kept the reference to de jure control in 111(5) instead of adopting a de facto standard. … Evidence was not presented to show that the board did not have the actual authority to make material decisions on behalf of MMV …. No evidence showed that MMV Financial required de facto or effective control of MMV in order to make the utilization of the losses work. … The presence of the longstanding, bright-line test of de jure control bears further witness to the rejection of applying the GAAR in the circumstances of this appeal as regards subsection 111(5). ...

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 DHI 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). Furthermore, Owen J disagreed with the CIBC position, stating (at paras. 72-72, 137): [S]ubsection 39(2) was not required to address foreign currency fluctuations associated with acquisitions and dispositions of property other than foreign currency because subsection 40(1) read with due regard to the need to convert the amounts identified in that subsection into Canadian dollars already addressed such fluctuations and integrated them into the gain or loss computed under subsection 40(1). … [T]his fact and the fact … that extending subsection 39(2) to dispositions of property other than foreign currency raises difficult issues together strongly suggest that Parliament did not intend that subsection 39(2) apply to dispositions of property other than foreign currency. … In conclusion … subsection 39(2) as it read in 2007 was a stand-alone provision but Parliament did not intend that the subsection apply to dispositions of property other than foreign currency. ...

Ellis “as partial compensation for the termination of the Group Life Plan” and (at para. 103) that such payment “providing partial compensation the loss of the status of being a member of the Group Life Plan …constituted a benefit,” Sommerfeldt J stated (at paras. 121, 124): As explained by Bowman J in … Tsiaprailis … where, in addition to the general provision in paragraph 6(1)(a), there is “a specific [statutory provision] containing detailed conditions for the inclusion of an amount in income that would not otherwise be income” … the general provision cannot be used “to fill in all the gaps left by” the specific provision…. I have concluded that subsection 6(4) of the ITA and Part XXVII of the ITR are specific provisions designed to include in income certain amounts in respect of insurance coverage under a group term life insurance policy. … As those specific provisions have not captured the distributions paid in 2011 by the HWT to Ms. ...