Search - 制暴无限杀机 下载

In allowing their appeal, Spiro J stated (at paras. 32,-34-35): [Circumstances responsible for the sale] … strongly favour... the Appellants. ... The Appellants offered a plausible explanation…. … Rather than installing multiple televisions, the Appellants installed multiple fireplaces. This strongly suggests that they built the home only for themselves. … [T]he Appellants left nothing for a potential purchaser to customize. … The fact that the Appellants finished everything to their own personal taste strongly suggests that they built the home only for themselves. ...

Smith J found that the receipts were invalid, stating (at paras 31, 32 and 45): … [A] receipt is a written document delivered in exchange for the receipt of money, goods or services, reflecting the actual amount of money or the fair market value of the property or services received. It follows that a document, though it bears the title “receipt” or “charitable receipt” …, may not be treated or accepted as such if it does not accurately reflect the money paid or the fair market value of the property or services actually provided in exchange. … [A]lthough the donation receipts in question are described as “official receipts” …, they are not in fact receipts as that term is ordinarily understood. ... (para 48) “The receipt issued by [the third charity]… clearly indicates that the Appellant made a cash donation… when her evidence was that she made the bulk of the donation by cheque. … In any event, …it was an inflated donation receipt and on that basis, …invalid.” ...

In order to in effect step up the PUC of the shares in Univar Canada, the group first created (as described in greater detail in the paragraph below) a sandwich structure in which a U.S. subsidiary (“UHI”) of Univar NV held notes and all the shares (having PUC and ACB equal to their FMV) of the appellant (“UHC” – which had been formed for the purposes of these transactions), UHC held all the shares of a U.S. subsidiary (“Univar Inc.”), and Univar Inc. held all the shares of Univar Canada. ... “[S]ection 84.1…permits PUC to be stepped up through such non-arm’s length transfer to the extent of the transferor’s “hard basis” in the transferred shares. … No such latitude is permitted under section 212.1.” … If the Appellant’s position prevailed, any non-resident shareholder could reorganize its corporate structure to interpose layers of Canadian resident subsidiaries within its structure to ensure that subsection 212.1 (1) never applies. ... The exception should not apply in the situation where a non-resident owns shares of the Canadian resident purchaser corporation. … The Appellant fictionally controlled the non-resident, Univar Inc. for less than a day and at all times the Appellant was itself controlled by a non-resident, UHI. ...

. … The receipts provided at trial showed ordinary clothes that might well be worn by anyone of Mr. Everett’s age …. I accept that Mr. Everett had to maintain a certain image. … That does not, of itself, convert an inherently personal expense into a business expense. ...

Before finding that CFI had satisfied the documentary requirements for claiming ITCs for the HST on the rent prepayments, and in rejecting the Crown position that various CFI spreadsheets did not satisfy its alleged requirement that “a supporting document … must originate from or be signed by the [supplier]” (para. 30), Hogan J stated (at paras. 38, 40 and 48): [T]he broad term “form” was used in subsection 169(4) of the Act and section 2 of the Regulations because Parliament was mindful of the benefits of paperless record keeping. … [I]nformation stored on a registrant’s computer server qualifies as supporting documentation. … [T]he Regulations do not set out a general requirement for the supporting documentation to be issued or signed by the supplier. ...

Whether an amount is "required to be included" – words used, for example in subsection 104(12), or subsection 144(7) – is a question of law. ...

In rejecting the taxpayers’ request that the Tax Court cancel the accumulated interest on their assessments, MacPhee J stated (at para. 24): The case law is clear: if a taxpayer wants a review of the Minister’s decision concerning interest relief he must file an application for judicial review at the Federal Court under section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act …. ...

After finding that AC made a single supply under the Agreement, and in finding that such single taxable supply was of promotional services rather than (as submitted by CIBC) a supply of “gift certificates” exempted under s. 181.2, Visser J stated (at paras. 32-33): [T]he true nature or raison d'être of the Aeroplan Mile Program, the … Agreement and the resulting Aeroplan Supplies is to market and promote applications for and increased use of participating CIBC credits cards (and other participating CIBC financial products such as mortgages). The wording of both the … Agreement and Aeroplan’s invoices to CIBC makes this clear. … In effect, section 9 of the 2003 Credit Card Agreement explicitly stipulates that the marketing and promotional services (the referral activities) are the predominant element of the Aeroplan Supplies and further provides that all other supplies are incidental thereto.. … …Aeroplan Payments were computed with reference to the number of Aeroplan Miles which were issued in a particular billing period as a convenient method for calculating the value of the marketing and promotional services provided by Aeroplan to CIBC. ...

. … IHI did not provide any evidence to establish that IHI (rather than RAR) acquired the services provided by Fetherstonhaugh (so as to come within the wording of subsection 169(1) of the ETA), nor did it provide any evidence of an agreement or other contractual arrangement between IHI and Fetherstonhaugh that required IHI to pay for those services. … As noted in Garmeco, to qualify for ITCs, a claimant “must demonstrate … that it acquired the goods and services for consumption or use in the course of its own commercial activity [emphasis added].” ...

Smith J found that CO2 Technologies was “a corporation controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever” by a public corporation (CO2 Public) and, thus, was not a Canadian-controlled private corporation (CCPC) – even before getting to the one-sided terms of the research agreement between the two corporations. ... Furthermore, the research agreement was similar to the development agreement in Aeronautics, which was found in that case to “constitute … a legally-enforceable arrangement capable of establishing de facto control under subsection 256(5.1)” – and the facts here were similar to Lyrtech and Solutions Mindready. ...