Search - 制暴无限杀机 下载

The Queen, 2011 DTC 1225 [at at 1308], 2011 TCC 316-- summary under Subparagraph 40(2)(g)(ii) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 40- Subsection 40(2)- Paragraph 40(2)(g)- Subparagraph 40(2)(g)(ii) guarantee to support receivable collection A corporation owned by the taxpayer and his wife wholly owned a trucking corporation ("D & N"), and his son wholly owned a small business corporation ("Mitchco"). ... D & N could collect its receivable." V.A. Miller J. stated (at paras. 43-44): I find that the Appellant has shown that one of his purposes for signing the guarantee in July 1996 was to support the continued existence of Mitchco, and thereby protect and collect a very significant source of earnings for D & N and for himself. ...

. … All of the cheques issued by the Appellant in payment of the invoices in question were cashed at cheque-cashing centres. … According to… Kosma‑Kare [2 015 TCC 182] and Salaison Lévesque [2014 FCA 296]...the name of the true supplier or its intermediary (within the meaning of the ETA) must appear on the invoices and good faith is not a relevant criterion in that regard. … The Appellant submits that since the Respondent acknowledged that supplies had been provided in relation to the invoices issued by the 4 suppliers, this was sufficient to entitle it to ITCs. ...

After first finding that PPP was not entitled to input tax credits under s. 175.1 respecting the claims paid by it, Tardif J also found that PPP was not entitled to ITCs under s. 169, stating (at paras. 97, 108, 110 and 120-121, TaxInterpretations translation): … [T]he vehicle acquired through the partial disbursement [the other part being covered by the primary insurer] does not profit or benefit the appellant since only the consumer takes advantage of the acquisition of the replaced property. … [T]he acquiror of the taxable supply is not the appellant but the consumer who benefits from the contract reimbursing for the full price…. The argument that the dealer must do a lot of work…to prepare and present the claim to the appellant is quite unconvincing…. … [T]o claim that the payment made by the appellant as a result of a claim is a transaction between the appellant and the dealer and a taxable economic activity is without merit. ...

. … [T]he exclusions listed in section 1 of Part III…should be narrowly construed. ... Smith J found that the crystallized ginger was zero-rated, finding (at paras 53, 54, 55, 57 and 58): The first ingredient was … ginger. ... Taking a textual approach to the interpretation of section 1(e) of the Act, I find that the opening words “candies, confectionery that may be classed as candy, or any goods sold as candies”, clearly suggest that it is primarily intended to exclude food that is commonly viewed and sold as candy where the first ingredient is in fact sugar or some other natural or artificial sweetener. … [M[ost consumers would be surprised to learn that products sold in the baking section of a typical grocery store, could be subject to GST [T]he crystallized ginger …was sold as a baking ingredient similar to a dried fruit. ...

. … [T]he exclusions listed in section 1 of Part III…should be narrowly construed. ... In finding that the granola was not excluded from zero-rating under para. 1(h), Smith J found (at paras 68, 70): … [M]any types of breakfast cereals can be snacked “right out of the box” and the suggestion on the packaging that you can do so, does not change a breakfast cereal into a snack item or convenience food.... While I agree that packaging and labelling will generally carry the day, I find that product placement within the grocery store is equally determinative. … [I]ts customers sold the product in question in the cereal aisle of the grocery store…. ...

The Queen, 2017 TCC 67-- summary under Section 166 Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 166 curative effect of ss. 166 and 152(8) After rejecting taxpayer submissions that a reassessment was invalid because it had been made before any audit of the items in question had really commenced and the reassessment had simply denied all the expenditures in full, D'Auray J went on to state respecting the “curative” effect of ss. 166 and 152(8) (at paras. 189-190): … [I]n light of the Ginsberg decision, I am of the view that the remedial provision in section 166 …has the effect of deeming an assessment valid, despite the failure of the Minister to comply with the requirements of subsection 152(1). With respect to the remedy in subsection 152(8)… in the Golini decision [2013 TCC 293], Miller J, in a situation similar to that in this case, …stated… … There is no law… to the effect that a protective assessment is invalid if issued for the sole purpose of leaving the door open to conduct or continue an audit. I can find no precedent that this is a procedural unfairness that overrides … section 152(8) ...

(b), stating (at para 44): …[I]f I had concluded that the Appellant provided multiple supplies, then … the supply of the orthodontic appliance would be zero-rated pursuant to section 11.1 of Schedule VI, Part II of the Act. … [T]he Act has set out the scheme for an orthodontic appliance entirely separate and apart from the provisions that apply to a prosthesis. … [T]he supply of an orthodontic appliance, being a medical device assembled by a licensed dental professional in a patient’s mouth, falls within the zero-rated scheme contained in Schedule VI. ...

The Queen, 2018 TCC 119 (Informal Procedure)-- summary under Subsection 298(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 298- Subsection 298(2) CRA could effectively reverse notice of discontinuance by reassessing The unrepresented taxpayer filed a notice of discontinuance for her appeal of the denial of the new housing rebate after being advised by Crown counsel that her appeal was unlikely to succeed – but a day later, was informed by Crown counsel that she would be allowed the rebate. ... He went on to note that CRA still appeared to have the ability to exercise its discretion to reassess to allow the rebate, stating (at para. 14): … I leave it to the Minister to consider the appropriateness of a reassessment to implement the terms of the consent, possibly pursuant to subsection 298(2) …. ...

The Queen, 2018 TCC 189 (Informal Procedure)-- summary under Paragraph 37(1)(d) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 37- Subsection 37(1)- Paragraph 37(1)(d) taxpayer had “physically” received unearned government assistance because it had authority to deal with the funds The taxpayer, a privately owned Canadian corporation involved in geothermal power exploration, development and utilization in Canada, was paid $528,560 in 2014 as a first advance, as assistance towards its SR&ED project, from Sustainable Development Technology Canada (“SDTC” – a government foundation) notwithstanding that one of the conditions for receipt of this payment under the Contribution Agreement between it and SDTC (the “first Milestone”) was never satisfied. ... There may have been an informal agreement respecting those funds but there was no obligation for the Appellant to notify SDTC when it transferred amounts from the trust account to another account. … In accordance with the ordinary dictionary meaning of “receive”, the Appellant physically acquired and accepted an advance of funds by way of a cheque from SDTC. The advance was given prior to the completion of the first Milestone and no conditions were superimposed on the transfer. … It was the Appellant’s decision to open a trust account and deposit those funds to that account. ...

Owen J confirmed the denial of her claim under s. 62 for $59,188 in moving expenses given that she was an Australian resident before the move, stating (at para 11): Paragraphs (b) and (c) of the definition of “eligible relocation” in subsection 248(1) … together require in clear and unambiguous terms that before the move the Appellant ordinarily resided at a residence in Canada and that after the move the Appellant ordinarily resided at a residence in Canada. An exception to the “in Canada” requirement in paragraph (c) is provided only if at the time of the move the Appellant was “absent from but resident in Canada”. … He also rejected the taxpayer’s submission that IT-178R3 was misleading respecting the “within Canada” requirement, noting (at para. 14) that it clearly was only addressing the situation where “an individual changes residences in Canada” – and, in any event, “information bulletins do not create estoppels” (para. 15). ...