Search - 制暴无限杀机 下载

The King, 2024 TCC 125-- summary under Subsection 165(1.11) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 165- Subsection 165(1.11) issue should be stated "reasonably" 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. ...

After stating (at para. 18) that “For the first step to mean something, the outcome of the first step has to affect the application of the test in the second step,” he stated (at para. 26): [I]if the Wiebe Door and Sagaz factors are completely inconsistent with [their shared] common intention, then their relationship will be the relationship indicated by those factors; and … if the Wiebe Door and Sagaz factors are inconsistent with that common intention but the parties nonetheless act and carry on their relationship in a manner that is similar to what one would expect from their intentions, then their relationship will be the relationship that they intended. ... He concluded (at paras. 68-69): … If I simply applied the Wiebe Door and Sagaz factors …, I would conclude that Mr. ... Those factors … indicate that he was an employee. The control and ownership of tools factors are neutral but Mr. ...

After noting that the preamble to s. 118.5(1)(b) (pursuant to which any tuition credit was to be recognized) referenced a deduction “for the purpose of computing the tax payable under this Part by an individual for a taxation year ” and that s. 118.61(1) referred to computing an “individual’s unused tuition … tax credits at the end of a taxation year,” Monaghan J agreed the Crown position based on the Oceanspan finding that “a non-resident with no source of income in Canada, was not a ‘taxpayer’ and therefore did not have a taxation year” (para. 29), and rejected the taxpayer position that s. 250.1(a) had the effect of deeming any non-resident to have a taxation year, stating (at paras. 38-39): [P]aragraph 250.1(a) applies only to those non-residents for whom a taxation year must be identified for a purpose mandated by the Act (including for the purpose identified in paragraph 250.1(b)) but who are not taxpayers and therefore would not otherwise have a taxation year for purposes of the Act. … It does not operate to give every non-resident a taxation year thereby allowing every non‑resident to bring themselves within the scope of the Act. A good example of when section 250.1 operates is subsection 104(13) … [which] may apply to a resident beneficiary of a non-resident trust. Although this was sufficient ground for dismissing the appeal, Monaghan J further noted (at para. 48) that “[s]ubsection 118.5(1) applies for one purpose only: ‘for the purpose of computing the tax payable by an individual for a taxation year.’,” so that (paras. 53, 55): [A] person will not be an individual for purposes of section 118.5 in a particular year unless that individual is a taxpayer in that year because the individual is described in subsection 2(1) or 2(3) and is potentially liable to tax in Canada under Part I. … [U]nless a non-resident individual is described in subsection 2(3), none of Part I applies to the individual. ...

. … [T]he exclusions listed in section 1 of Part III…should be narrowly construed. ... In finding that the sticks came within the exclusion from zero-rating in para. 1(f), Smith J stated (at paras 59, 62, and 63): …[T]he sticks … were manufactured by a company called “Old School Snacks” and the evidence clearly established that they were sold as snacks and eaten as‑is without further preparation. …[T]he … sticks were not sold as crackers or “bread sticks” or even as a bread product. … [B]read products including crackers are in fact oven‑baked and not fried. ...

. … The Court cannot gloss over a legislative provision which requires the Minister to make an assessment permitting the taxpayer to then make an election. … I also note that clause 2106(a)(iv)(A) of the Regulation … requires that the taxpayer indicate “the date of the notice of assessment of the tax that would, but for the election, have been payable under Part III of the Act.” ...

The Queen, 2020 TCC 44-- summary under Subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 152- Subsection 152(4)- Paragraph 152(4)(a)- Subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i) meaning of misrepresentation in French and English versions is prima facie different The taxpayer was reassessed for quite a number of taxation years for which the main substantive issue was whether dispositions of shares in an offshore fund were on capital account – but many of the earlier years were beyond the normal reassessment period. ... Wong J stated (at paras. 19-23): This question requires a decision as to whether the English or French version of the provision is to be preferred…. … I do not believe that this question is suitable for determination under rule 58. ... In dismissing the motion, she stated (at paras. 24-25): I cannot agree with the Appellant’s proposition … that a question of income versus capital necessarily amounts to a difference in opinion. … [T]he factual circumstances of the appeal will determine whether the issue of income versus capital is purely a difference of opinion or not. … The question of whether a misrepresentation under subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i) contemplates fact only or mixed-law-and-fact, should properly remain with the trier of fact to determine in conjunction with the related substantive issues. ...

The stamping regulations as set out above make it clear that the relevant package is “the smallest package – including outer wrapping that is customarily displayed to the consumer – in which it is normally offered for sale to the general public”. ...

Parker and other circumstances … cry out for relief to be granted to the Appellant, such relief … is within the purview of the Minister, not the Court. ...

Rasouli, 2013 SCC 53 …. …[M]any of the routine services provided to residents by care aides apply nursing expertise to address particular medical concerns…[and are] of a different type than ordinary assistance with activities of daily living…. The agreed upon test was that therapeutic health care services had to be provided for at least 2.4 hours (10 percent) each calendar day. … [J]udicial interpretations…do not support the bright line 10 percent test. … The Harrison received funding during the relevant period for 2.8 hours of care per resident per day. ...

-dollar short-term debt obligations, loans to several thousand independent U.S. distributors of Weston baked goods and intercorporate loans – and entered into cross-currency and interest rate swaps with an arm’s length bank to effectively convert much of its income stream into fixed rated Canadian-dollar interest. ... However, he indicated (if application of s. 245 had been relevant and if, contrary to his finding, there had been an avoidance transaction) that there would have been such misuse, stating (at paras. 322-323): The policy, or underlying rationale, of the exemption … is to promote competition of affiliates operating in international markets. … [I]t follows that Loblaw Financial was misusing this exemption as it was not competing in any manner in any international market. ...