Search - 制暴无限杀机 下载

. … Rather, what one finds in reviewing the DOA and ADOA are clauses providing for the payment of lump sums and the payment of additional amounts based on sales of the Software. To the extent that it is useful to characterize the sales agreements in this case … they are clearly "earnout" agreements. The fact that both the DOA and the ADOA provided for a maximum with respect to the total payments that could be received by the Appellant does not alter this conclusion. … [T]here is nothing in the wording of paragraph 14(1)(b) to suggest that it should be accorded precedence over paragraph 12(1)(g). ...

In finding that the vendors, and Abacus and NH Properties, were not dealing with each other at arm’s length, Boyle J stated (at paras. 155, 161): Given the agreement for Abacus to pay a premium to the co-owners to purchase the co-owners’ interests … the steps and the amounts in the series of transactions cannot be considered to reflect ordinary commercial dealings. … Harvard Properties, Abacus and NH Properties clearly acted together to dictate [the] Newcos’ actions from their inception and throughout the closing of this series of transactions. In finding that the cash proceeds received by Harvard Properties exceeded the FMV of the Newco shares sold by it, Boyle J found (at para. 166) that Harvard Properties had failed to establish any value for the shares, stating (at para. 174): There appears to be little to no chance that any arm’s length party unrelated to these transactions would agree to accept, much less pay for, the HP Newco shares at the relevant time as the Newcos would moments in time later have no assets, no business, and the possibility of a significant liability for their roles in these transactions …. ...

A New York LLC (“Wolfbend”) was established for the purpose of collecting profits earned under the Manufacturing & License Agreement between the taxpayer and Davis Aircraft Inc. and allocating those profits to its members, being the taxpayer, his brother and Davis family members. ... Ouimet J stated (at paras 59, 60-61): …[P]roviding engineering services is a business and, therefore, the income of CAD$26,244 earned in Canada was generated by an “active” commercial activity. … [T]he income generated by manufacturing activity is also from an “active” business. ... Therefore … the revenues from all three sources qualify as “active business” revenues. ...

. … CAIL filed the Plan under the CCAA which released it of its liabilities arising before March 24, 2000. ... But in the absence of provisions in the Act spelling out when such limitation is lifted, such finding is best left for another day – perhaps in a collection forum.... ...

. … CAIL filed the Plan under the CCAA which released it of its liabilities arising before March 24, 2000. ... But in the absence of provisions in the Act spelling out when such limitation is lifted, such finding is best left for another day – perhaps in a collection forum. ...

Miller J. concluded (at paras. 35 & 36): [T]he context of the “dividend refund” described in paragraph 129(1)(a) is within the system used to collect tax up front from a corporation and then to refund that tax, or part of it, when a dividend is paid out to a shareholder. … The purpose of the section 129 is to prevent tax deferral by placing the shareholder who has received the dividends in much the same tax position as if he had received the investment income himself without the intermediary corporation. ...

. … I can not accept the taxpayer’s submission that the only service which Three-W was paid to provide was that of recruiting students and it was entitled to its commissions once the students were registered regardless. … The service is not provided wholly outside Canada for purposes of paragraph 142(1)(g). ...

. … …[S]ubsection 100(1) looks at the capital gain otherwise determined under the Act and then determines which portion of the capital gain is taxable. The Respondent is, in effect, asking me to find that one of the purposes of subsection 100(1) is to base the capital gain not on the gain otherwise calculated under the Act, but rather on accrued gains (including recapture) of property held by the partnership. … If Parliament had intended such a result it would have drafted subsection 100(1) in a manner that required such a look-through, in other words, in a manner similar to new subparagraph 88(1)(d)(ii.1) of the bump rules. ...

. … …Athabasca’s purpose in acquiring the Books was to utilize these as inputs in its supply of exempt instructional services rather than to supply the Books by way of sale. Accordingly, I conclude “purpose” in the exclusionary phrase refers to the ultimate purpose. … …[T]he wording of the provision is clear that Athabasca was to have made a supply of the Books and not merely a transfer of ownership of the Books. ...

. … For tax purposes, a bare trust is considered a non-entity in the sense that a beneficiary as principal, is considered to deal directly with property through the trustee as agent or nominee…. … Since I have concluded that Dr. ...