Search - 制暴无限杀机 下载

The tax policy underlying paragraphs 110(1)(d) … and 6204(2)(b) … is to prevent the turning of stock option plans into forms of additional remuneration and to ensure that the employees subscribing for these shares are exposed to a certain level of risk. ...

The Appellant may wish to consider making an application for a reduction of the penalty and interest under … subsection 220(3.1) …. ...

There is also a further 50% refundable tax on the RCA’s income from business or property for each year as well as its capital gains for the year [citing s. 207.5(1) – refundable tax – (b)]. ...

. … Stewart confirms … that the non-existence of income is not determinative of whether a taxpayer’s activities constitute a source of income. … He certainly could demonstrate better business practices and I note that his record keeping leaves much to be desired but I still conclude that he conducted his activities with a level of commerciality sufficient to constitute a business. ...

The Minister’s position was that LBL sold the tobacco products to such third party customers who were not status Indians, with the MacNaughtons being compensated for their involvement in this scheme through volume rebates – so that such sales were not exempted under s. 87 of the Indian Act. In finding that the MacNaughtons were the "recipients" of the sales as defined in ETA s. 123(1), so that the sales were so exempted, Visser J stated (at paras. 142, 147): [T[he MacNaughtons were the recipients of the supplies of the Tobacco Products during the Periods. … Roberta MacNaughton … entered into an oral agreement with Lumsden to purchase the Tobacco Products from Lumsden, and it was Roberta MacNaughton who was liable under that agreement to pay Lumsden for the Tobacco Products. ...

In confirming the imposition of gross negligence penalties, Campbell J. stated (at para 21): [The taxpayer] … has several degrees from well-recognized educational institutions. He has a varied work experience, which included providing investment, tax and financial advice as an insurance agent and mutual funds agent. … [H]e recognized that the status of payments had the potential of changing from non-taxable to taxable. … The unreported tips were very significant and material when compared to the income that he reported in these taxation years. … [W]ith his background …, at the very least he should have …made some effort to ascertain the proper tax treatment of such large gratuity amounts. ...

. … A contextual analysis of subsection 118.61(1) supports Dr. Zhang’s position … [as] unlike element “B”, which uses the phrase “which may be deducted”, element “D” uses the phrase “that the individual may deduct”. … The purposive analysis supports the Respondent’s position … [as in the] Department of Finance Technical Note … “amount of the tuition and education tax credits carryforward that is deductible for the current year” is used to describe element “D”. ... Graham J concluded (at para 18): … I am satisfied from the purposive analysis that the contextual problem is simply a result of poor drafting. ...

. … While the Law Society is required to have the public interest in mind when it carries out its regulating functions, this does not mean that it is performing a function of government. … The Law Society performs its various functions in the course of regulating the legal profession, not in the course of governing people located in Ontario. … None of the functions of the Law Society constitute a legislative function. … [T]he Law Society … by-laws relate to regulating the legal profession in Ontario, not governing the people of Ontario. [A] judicial function is only performed by a judge of one of Canada’s courts. … Accordingly, the taxpayer was not entitled to the exemption under s. 149(1)(d.5). ...

In rejecting the Crown’s position that the appellant was not entitled to the rebate because he had acquired the condo from the Assignor (who was not the “builder”) rather than from West Harbour, Jorré DJ stated (at paras 23, 24): Given that there was no sale from West Harbor to the Assignor, given that the Appellant made all the payments due to West Harbour under the purchase agreement arising after he signed the assignment agreement, … given the … emails showing acceptance by West Harbor of a direction coming from the office of the Appellant’s lawyer that title would be in the Appellant’s name and given the land registry records showing the transfer from West Harbor to the Appellant, it is clear from its conduct that the vendor, West Harbor, waived any unfulfilled conditions regarding the assignment, accepted the assignment and sold the property to the Appellant. ...

He further stated (at para. 75): [I]n Ver, Justice Bowman indicated that the question of whether an expenditure was made for a business or a personal purpose is a matter of judgment, and not the subject of a misrepresentation within the meaning of subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i) …. I adopt that view, except to the extent that either of the Appellants has acknowledged, or it is patently obvious, that a particular expenditure was incurred for a personal purpose, or was not incurred for a business purpose …. ... Accordingly, the reassessments were statute-barred except to the extent that they “were clearly personal, as distinct from those whose determination may have been ‘matters of judgment’ of the type discussed … in Ver ” (para. 105). ...