Search - 包建铎违纪违法案件以案促改以案促治专题组织生活会 个人对照检查

. … Because each taxpayer is assessed (or reassessed) separately, this can result in inconsistent assessments (Peterson v. ...

.): the incorporation of Veracity (which “allowed for the absolute avoidance of B.C. tax, not simply a deferral under s. 85” – para. 42); the transfer of the ALI shares to Veracity (in order to implement the Q-Yes plan; and the adoption of the different year ends. ...

. … The second legal error flows from the Tax Court’s concern with tax avoidance…[namely] the “sole purpose of the borrowed funds [was] to facilitate an interest free loan to Wendy’s while creating an interest deduction for the Appellant”. ...

Moreover, s. 164(3), which provided for the payment of interest on amounts that are refunded, repaid or applied to another liability of a taxpayer, applied to the Overpayment in relation to the 1995 taxation year – and the taxpayer’s argument implied that for this purpose as well, the day of payment was on June 10, 1995 rather than in February 2000. ...

. … [A] factor that does not include a legally enforceable right and ability to effect a change to the board of directors or its powers, or to exercise influence over the shareholder or shareholders who have that right and ability, ought not to be considered as having the potential to establish de facto control. ...

As reiterated… in Turner … 2012 FCA 159 at para [45]…[w]hen the reviewing court is not in a position to determine if the decision on that point or argument falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and the law, the decision will usually be found to be unreasonable, unless the reviewing court can itself reasonably find that the outcome of the proceedings would not have changed even if the point or argument has been dealt with by the tribunal one way or the other. ...

. … …[T]he condition under which deductibility is disallowed in respect of payments to non-residents, is plainly different from that when made to a resident. ...

. … There is no evidence that the Assessee has any right to use the premises or any fixed place at its disposal. ...

This is because the making of exempt supplies is excluded from the definition of “commercial activities” … Also, I find that the legal fees incurred by the Appellant in the course of litigation commenced in January 2011 have not been shown to have been related to or connected with any commercial activity carried on by the Appellant. ...

…[T]echnological obstacles and uncertainties … could readily change from one year to the next. ...