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

. … I believe it was reasonable for the Minister’s Delegate to conclude that a CRA agent would seek to follow up with the Applicant regarding its obviously missing T1135 return.” ...

Since the payment of the sums … to the City of Chandler had the effect of freeing the appellant of its obligation to negotiate in good faith to create a limited partnership, the consideration received by the appellant in exchange for such payment was the amount by which that obligation was extinguished. ...

Section 97 uses the phrase “immediately after... the partnership... acquired the property” in subsection 97(1) …. ...

. … [T]he Notes… are investments by SLT in debt instruments of BNSIL and TDII, which are non-resident entities. ...

It does not embrace a share that, in the event of a reduction or redemption of capital, does not give its holder the right to participate in the corporation's assets …. ...

Accordingly, the plaintiffs had not met the first requirement for a mandamus order (the existence of a legal obligation of a public character) – nor had they demonstrated that the Minister’s decision was unreasonable. ...

The MGICs were also the sole members of a non-share corporation (“Groupe Promutuel,” or the “Federation”) which did not have any capital participation in ProRé, and whose affairs were administered by a board of directors consisting of 10 individuals – seven directors and three managing directors of different MGICs. ...

Before granting the amendments, D’Auray J indicated that Rule 132 applied only to “formal admissions” such as in pleadings Andersen Consulting ([1998] 1 FC 605 (FCA)) had established “that an application for leave to withdraw admissions did not require a separate form” (para. 75), so that the requested amendment to the Reply could constitute application to withdraw an admission In Burlington’s examination for discovery of the Crown’s nominee in 2014, “[n]umerous times the respondent’s counsel stated that it was the respondent’s position that no amounts were payable as guarantee fees” (para. 77) Although in an Amended Reply, the Crown had admitted that guarantee fees had been paid in the amounts stated in the Notice of Appeal, “the respondent did not make a clear and deliberate concession that the amounts paid to BRI were guarantees fees” (para. 80) in light of the point immediately above and denials made by the Crown elsewhere in the Reply Even if there had been such an admission, D’Auray J “would still have permitted the withdrawal of the admission since … there is a triable issue which ought to be tried in the interests of justice” (para. 82) “In addition, the purported withdrawal does not amount to an injustice to Burlington since it has been aware of the respondent’s position at least since its discovery of the respondent’s nominee in 2014.” ...

The Minister is under a statutory duty to determine the tax that is owing or a refund is due in relation to the August 2018 return of the Applicant, pursuant to section 275 …. ...

In applying the domestic provision, HMRC attributed to the PEs notional additional free capital on the basis that if they had operated as distinct and separate enterprises, they would have had a higher amount of free capital and therefore a correspondingly lower amount of borrowed capital – with the result that HMRC disallowed interest which was actually paid to third parties. ...