Search - 制暴无限杀机 下载

Pizzitelli J first stated (at para. 14) that “There is … no real dispute between the parties that clear and express language must be used to delegate taxing power to comply with such principle of no taxation without representation”. Before rejecting the taxpayer’s position, Pizzitelli J stated (at para. 28): … [T]he words of both 207.05 and 207.06 are clear and … each represents a separate stand-alone provision, the first a detailed provision that sets a tax rate of 100 percent on the advantages it clearly defines in 207.01, in regard to detailed transactions it clearly sees as misusing or abusing the TFSA tax exemption regime, with detailed and specific exceptions and, the second, a discretionary ability of the Minister to waive or cancel all or any portion of such 100 percent tax. ...

It turns to Rule 30(2), which provides how a corporation may appear in person in the Tax Court of Canada – by means of leave of a judge of the Court with possible conditions. … Yes, there is common law jurisprudence to the effect that “in person” can only mean by the presence of a visible person … but there has been no such jurisprudence, until Masa Sushi, from the Tax Court of Canada. ...

Boyle J further found that the 14‑hour average requirement in s. 118.3(1)(a.1)(ii) was met, stating (at paras 52 and 54): The corrected chart … would be 798.5 minutes or 13.3 hours. ... Boyle J further found (at paras 57 and 61): I conclude that the proper meaning of the word “therapy” (soins thérapeutiques) in the DTC provisions … simply means the care or treatment of a physical or mental condition. … None of Gwynneth’s treatment related to what can fairly be described as simply a dietary restriction…. [The treatment] … is much more like administering a medication than it is like managing a diet. ...

The King, 2024 TCC 130-- summary under Agency Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Agency agency implied on the basis of conduct/ acts of agent were those of principal The appellant (MELP) was found to be performing its services to Canadian patients who underwent bariatric surgery at the surgical unit in Mexico of a Mexican company (“LIMARP”) as agent given that their conduct- including MELP being subject to control over health-related matters by LIMARP, and being implicitly authorized to deal with the patients before and after the operation, and MELP quite regularly remitting the fees that it collected from the Canadian patients, other than the 50% portion thereof retained by it for its services, to LIMARP – implied an agency arrangement. Accordingly, MELP was not subject to GST/HST on the ½ portion of the patient fees that it collected as agent for LIMARP, given that an agent in acting as such does not make a supply to its principal. ...

. … [T]here is no “normal reassessment period” applicable to the application of the GAAR …. ...

That then left the issue as to whether his claimed expenses were expended by him “for travelling in the course of the … employment.” ... I therefore find that the Appellant has met this requirement of paragraph 8(1)(h) …. Words and Phrases ordinarily required in the course of the … employment ...

Yeomans is allowed to testify to the contents of the Appraisal Reports, limited to the opinions that she had formed while participating as the appraisers for the Artistic Program,” Rossiter CJ stated (at paras 65, 73 and 97): I find that Westerhof, with certain clarifications …, should apply with equal force to proceedings arising in the Tax Court. ... The real legal test, it seems to me, should be that a witness with expertise who has not been engaged by or on behalf of a party to the litigation to form the original opinion for the purpose of litigation may give the said opinion evidence without complying with the expert evidence rules – e.g. rule 53.03 in the Ontario Rules, rule 145 in the Tax Court Rules – provided that the “core” of the Westerhof test is met, that is, “the opinion to be given is based on the witness's observation of or participation in the events at issue; and the witness formed the opinion to be given as part of the ordinary exercise of his or her skill, knowledge, training and experience while observing or participating in such events”: Westerhof, at para. 60. … Artistic, not the Appellants, was the entity that engaged Ms. ... She inspected the art at the offices of Artistic. … Further, given my above interpretation of the phrase “engaged by or on behalf of a party”, even if Ms. ...

In finding that CanLII instead was making a taxable supply, so that it was entitled to ITCs, Lamarre ACJ stated (at paras. 39-40): … I note that the definition of “consideration” in [s. 123(1) of] the ETA … states that consideration “includes” any amount that is payable for a supply by operation of law. … Therefore, I do not read the definition as imposing a requirement for an enforceable legal obligation to pay as argued by the respondent. ... In rejecting a Crown submission, she stated (at para. 54): I agree with CanLII that a direct link exists between the payment of the levy by the Federation and the supply of the virtual library. … Words and Phrases operation of law ...

After noting (at para. 50) that there was not “a complete severance of contractual ties and obligations” after the termination of active service (for examples, duties of notification), Bocock J stated (at para. 53) that “[g]enerally … non-residents pay tax only on employed income from Canada where the employment is performed in Canada” and that, under s. 4(1)(b): [W]here duties are performed by a taxpayer in both Canada (“one place”) and a different country (“another place”), the taxpayer’s income is calculated from the duties performed in the one place versus another place. ... This is also supported by the preamble in paragraph 115(2)(c.1) applicable to both sub-paragraphs where it stated "“irrespective of … the form or legal effect of the contract …”". ...

Wong J noted (at para. 15) the taxpayer’s submission that, in the context of “the distinction between the French version of subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i) which reads ‘une présentation erronée des faits’ while the English version reads ‘any misrepresentation’ … the income-versus-capital issue is one of mixed law and fact and as a result, cannot constitute a misrepresentation for the purposes of subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i).” ... In dismissing the motion, she stated (at paras. 24-25, 28): 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. …. In the present case, documents have not yet been exchanged nor have discoveries been conducted. … While the mechanics of the transactions may not be in dispute, the factual circumstances have yet to be determined for the purposes of confirming or rebutting the Minister’s assumptions. ...