Search - 制暴无限杀机 下载

Before going on to find that s. 54.2 did not apply, Graham J first noted that it was unnecessary, given his findings below, for him to address whether the Tissue Division was a separate business, and then stated (at paras 25, 27 and 28): It is unclear on the face of section 54.2 how I am to determine whether the assets … transferred to 722 represent all or substantially all of the assets of the Tissue Division. ... It is arguable that the test in section 54.2 could be satisfied so long as the recipient had received all of the key assets of the business, regardless of their value. … …I find that the test in section 54.2 is intended to be a somewhat flexible test but that there is no reason not to consider the fair market value of the assets when applying the test. … Graham J found, to the extent that the test in s. 54.2 considers fair market value, the taxpayer had not met the test, stating (at paras 32, 33): … [T]he assets transferred to 722 would make up only 68% of the total assets of the Tissue Division. While I acknowledge that all or substantially all does not mean 90% and that the specific percentage that meets the test in any given context may vary, I cannot accept that it means something just over two-thirds. … There was no evidence as to the fair market value of the portion of the Progress Property [or] … the Whitby Property used by the Tissue Division. … Had these assets been included in the … calculation, the percentage of fair market value transferred to 722 would have been even lower. ...

., not an “adventure in the nature of trade”) all businesses — without statutory exception — fall within the scope of subsection 146.2(6) of the Act, including a business of trading qualified investments. ...

The key considerations …are: …{H]is primary intention … to sell …at a profit as soon as a reasonable return …could be realized. ... Foote spent considerable time …monitoring markets beyond what … was required for his employment. … [H]e gleaned relevant market information as part of his daily job…. ... The nature of the gains … bears a close similarity to what he has been doing in his investment dealer positions for decades. … Mr. ...

Before agreeing with the position of the Minister that the “gratuity” was part of the consideration for the supply under the contract, Bocock J referred inter alia to the finding in N DP Co Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioner, [1988] VATTR 40 that: [V]oluntary gratuities are not subject to VAT because voluntary gratuities are: ‘[N]o part of the contract that the customer should pay a charge for service ….’ Before dismissing the taxpayer’s appeal, he stated (at paras. 21, 27-28): [T]he inclusion of an obligation as part of the bargain, cannot be viewed as a gift but part of the consideration. … Subsection 133(b) combined with subsection 138(a) … suggests that tips included in an agreement are part of the overall supply of prepared meals, which is subject to HST. … The ETA defines “consideration” as “any amount that is payable for a supply by operation of law.” ...

Bédard J. stated (at para. 64): The Latin maxim " expressio unius est exclusio alterius ", also known as the principle of implied exclusion, states that where the legislator causes a provision to apply to a number of categories but fails to include one that that could easily have been included, one may infer that the legislator intended to exclude that category from the application of the provision. ...

See summaries under s. 12(1)(x), s. 9 – compensation payments, and s. 9 – computation of profit. ...

I also conclude … that these expenses were reasonable. … [T]he Appellant testified that after he paid for a room, he had approximately $20 to $30 remaining for meals per day and that, on many occasions, he had to personally subsidize the cost of his food. … I see no reason why the term “travel expenses” cannot be interpreted to include these meal expenses, when they are reasonable and provided at the remote work location. ...

. … [T]he error was obvious and … if Mr. Tremblay and Mr. Forest [the CEO and CFO] had checked the return, they would certainly have detected the error since they were both CPAs and it was fairly straightforward to ensure that the dividends were included. … In my view, the failure to review the appellant's income tax return and the failure to question the accountant to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in the return demonstrate a lack of due diligence on the part of the appellant's officers. ...

Before allowing the taxpayer’s motion to strike the quoted statement from the Reply pursuant to Rules 53(1)(a) and (c), Lafleur J found that the quoted phrase referenced the jurisprudential test of “central management and control,” and further noted (at para. 18) that the “location of the ‘central management and control’ of a corporation … is actually the legal test that must be applied to determine the residency of a corporation.” In explaining the decision to strike under Rules 53(1)(a) (“delay … fair hearing”) and (c) (“abuse of … process”) she stated (at para. 37): [B]ecause the Appellant will have to speculate as to the facts underlying the conclusion of mixed fact and law of the Minister that the “controlling mind and management” of Lowfroc was in Canada, and because the Appellant therefore cannot be properly prepared for and proceed with discoveries, this will prejudice or delay the fair prosecution of the appeal and constitutes an abuse of the Court’s process. ...

Lafleur J found that the quoted phrase referenced the jurisprudential test of “central management and control,” and further noted (at para. 18) that the “location of the ‘central management and control’ of a corporation … is actually the legal test that must be applied to determine the residency of a corporation.” In explaining the decision to strike under Rules 53(1)(a) (“delay … fair hearing”) and (c) (“abuse of … process”), she stated (at para. 37): [B]ecause the Appellant will have to speculate as to the facts underlying the conclusion of mixed fact and law of the Minister that the “controlling mind and management” of Lowfroc was in Canada, and because the Appellant therefore cannot be properly prepared for and proceed with discoveries, this will prejudice or delay the fair prosecution of the appeal and constitutes an abuse of the Court’s process. ...