Search - 制暴无限杀机 下载

The Queen, 2020 TCC 34-- summary under Subsection 261(3) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 261- Subsection 261(3) In connection with a purchase of a dental practice (by the taxpayer, or by a partnership between him and the vendor – those facts are not clear), on February 29, 2012, the taxpayer paid the vendor $85,013.50 in HST in addition to the purchase price and, following a change in accountants, filed GST/HST general rebate application dated February 12, 2016 seeking a rebate of tax paid in error in the amount previously paid. ... Wong J dismissed the appeal, stating (at paras 17, 24): I am unable to see a way in which the common-law discoverability rule can be appropriately applied to the present situation. … By the time the Minister received the Appellant’s rebate application on February 5, 2016, the time limit had already passed and cannot be extended: see Panar…. ...

After noting (at para. 14) that “In order for the Minister to assess a policyholder under … subsection 148(1)… the “adjusted cost basis” of the policy to the policyholder immediately before its disposition must be determined by applying the formula set out in subsection 148(9),” Spiro J stated (at para 25): The courts have consistently held that unless the Minister’s assumptions of fact are sufficient to support the assessment under the relevant legislation, the onus does not shift to the taxpayer. ... …[T]he amount included in computing the income of each Appellant … was simply an amount equal to the “proceeds of the disposition” of each policy…. ...

D’Arcy J stated (at paras 40, 43 and 53 … [T]he Respondent accepts that the Appellant carried on a business in Canada and that this business included research related to improvements in cardiac surgical methodology. ... Lamy is the only employee of the Appellant, clearly he is the only one conducting the business of the Appellant, namely performing surgery, providing care to patients and conducting medical research.. … Dr. ...

. … The reassessment of SaskCo was a protective assessment issued by the Respondent as an alternative assessment to be relied upon if AgraCity prevailed in its appeals. … In the Respondent’s written submissions filed following the conclusion of the evidence and days in advance of oral argument, it indicated to the Court and the Appellants that it was conceding the SaskCo appeal. ...

After finding that reassessment of the gains for the 2007, 2008 and 2009 taxation years were statute-barred, D’Auray J went on to find that the gains for 2011 and 2012 were on income account, stating (at paras 101, 103): … I am of the view that Mr. ... If it was not his primary intention, then the possibility of reselling them at profit was certainly a secondary intention motivating him to purchase both houses. … Mr. ...

[A]s expressed in Bernick … “an accounting method that cannot possibly produce an accurate result can never meet the Canderel standard.” … [A]n unintentional understatement of the cost of goods sold in its 2010 and 2011 taxation years cannot be remedied by an intentional overstatement of the costs of goods sold in its 2012 taxation year. ...

In confirming their deductibility, Masse DJ stated (at para. 50): … The repairs effected by the Appellant did not result in the creation of a different capital asset than what was there before. … They were meant to bring the property to the state that it previously was. ...

. … While the law has made a distinction where someone in business is simply maintaining or somewhat extending existing knowledge and skills by, for example, taking a continuing education course within their existing field, that distinction has no application here given that the Appellants were not previously involved in real estate …. ...

. … However, taking into account the language of the rest of the subsection, I am of the view that exceptional or extraordinary circumstances must exist before the Court exercises its discretion. … In explaining the increase to 85%, she noted that the Crown had not admitted that the homes were owned in equal co-ownership by the taxpayer and his wife, rather than by the taxpayer alone, until one week before trial, even though this fact had been admitted in the discoveries by a CRA representative more than a year earlier. ...

The King, 2022 TCC 148, aff'd 2024 FCA 45-- summary under Section 35 Summary Under Tax Topics- Other Legislation/Constitution- Constitution Act, 1867- Section 35 Senate vacancies do not invalidate ITA bills passed by it The taxpayer appealed a reassessment of its 2011 taxation year – made in reliance on a retroactive amendment made in 2014 to the definition in s. 125/4(1) of “assistance” – on the grounds that the amending Act was passed by a Senate that had substantial vacancies, contrary to Part IV of the Constitution Act, 1867. ...