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

It did so 505 times in the relevant period…” (para. 55) “I accept, of course, that the enduring nature of an outgoing is a very relevant matter … but I do not think that the five year term obtained under the contracts here was of such a nature. ...

The failure to do neither, in the Decision itself or the recommendation which preceded it, had the effect, as it appears to me, in the particular circumstances of this case in the context of an application which is essentially an equitable one, of “depriving the process of justification, transparency and intelligibility,” to adopt the expression used in Telfer …. ...

The relevant dicta are mainly collected in a summary by Lord Walker in DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2011] 1 WLR 44, paras 37-39 …: (1) The extent of the fiction created by a deeming provision is primarily a matter of construction of the statute in which it appears. (2) For that purpose the court should ascertain, if it can, the purposes for which and the persons between whom the statutory fiction is to be resorted to, and then apply the deeming provision that far, but not where it would produce effects clearly outside those purposes. (3) But those purposes may be difficult to ascertain, and Parliament may not find it easy to prescribe with precision the intended limits of the artificial assumption which the deeming provision requires to be made. (4) A deeming provision should not be applied so far as to produce unjust, absurd or anomalous results, unless the court is compelled to do so by clear language. (5) But the court should not shrink from applying the fiction created by the deeming provision to the consequences which would inevitably flow from the fiction being real. ...

Gleason JA also rejected a submission that the Tax Court had focused insufficiently on whether there had been a corporate intent to impoverish the corporations, stating (at para. 44) that “this Court … [has] found that a shareholder benefit was conferred without any determination having been made as to the corporation’s intent” and (at para. 45) “even if intent to impoverish the corporation were required, such intent cannot be equated with a controlling shareholder’s subjective intent and most especially not with an intent that was formulated [as in the case here] after the corporate expenditure was engaged”. ...

After noting (at para. 38) that such a double increase would represent “an absurd result,” Noël CJ stated (at para. 48): [T]he appellant’s partnership interest had already been acquired when the shopping centres were transferred, thereby eliminating any possibility that, in addition to the subsection 97(2) adjustment, the partnership interest could be increased under section 54 by the “cost”, i.e. the fair market value, of the transferred property …. ...

In further rejecting a taxpayer submission based on no reassessment having been issued to bring the 2003 tax payable back from zero, as per the 2010 nil assessment, to the amount initially assessed, he stated (at paras. 77-78): … Markevich makes it clear that an excessive refund can be assessed even if the power to issue a reassessment for the year pursuant to subsection 152(4) has expired. ...

. … The Crown has not persuaded me that in 2008 and 2009 the purpose of the Reduction Provision was to do anything other than to reduce the addition of life insurance proceeds to a corporation’s capital dividend account by the amount of the adjusted cost basis of the life insurance policy to that corporation. ...

. … Splitting the ownership of the building and the ownership of 9118, which continued to operate the [residence], had only one goal, to minimize the taxes payable. ...

At the time the plaintiff filed his return in April 1999 for his 1998 taxation year, he did not retain a taxable benefit resulting from his conduct for which he ultimately was found to be criminally responsible …. ...

The following question was posed under Rule 58 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure): Where the Minister has at all times concluded that no partnership existed, can the Minister issue a valid Notice of Determination in respect of that purported partnership under subsection 152(1.4) …. ...