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

She stated (at paras. 258, 261, Tax Interpretations translation): … [N]othing in subsection 152(4.01) precludes the Minister from including the amount of tax payable on the previous un-amended assessment in a reassessment made under subsections 152(4) and 152(4.01). ...

. … ...

Miller J stated: … It is my view that in a GAAR appeal, draft documents prepared in the context of a taxpayer’s audit or considered by officials involved in or consulted during the audit and assessment of the taxpayer should be disclosed. ...

. … I have no jurisdiction to decide a matter of consequence to taxpayers that are not appellants before this Court. ...

This principle was recognized… in Huntley … 2010 TCC 625, at paragraph 17. ...

On this basis, she found (at para 35): … The supply of orthodontic treatments were dental services, consisting of a supply of consultative, diagnostic, treatment or other health care services rendered by a medical practitioner to patients and as such are exempt supplies within the parameters of section 5 of Schedule V, Part II. ...

Ahmad instead appealed the denial of the new housing rebate, and did not apply for the NRRPR until the two-year deadline for doing so (under ETA s. 256.2(7)(a)) had passed – and also failed to file a Notice of Objection to the CRA assessment denying his NRRPR claim. ...

. … Second, respecting a submission that the cost amount of the taxpayer’s investment in the Bermuda company had by the years in question declined in value due to its financial difficulties and was less than $100,000, Bocock J referred to public filings indicating that the taxpayer’s cost was $560,000, and stated (at para. 43): [S]uch an assertion of diminished value is less probable than the clear historical record created contemporaneously and submitted by third party professionals for public disclosure and reliance. ...

In finding that such payment was not taxable, Sommerfeldt J indicated that although it could easily be considered to be a benefit that arose out of her previous employment, the principle in Tsiaprailis applied to the effect that (para. 121): where, in addition to the general provision in paragraph 6(1)(a), there is “a specific [statutory provision] containing detailed conditions for the inclusion of an amount in income that would not otherwise be income” … the general provision cannot be used “to fill in all the gaps left by” the specific provision [viz. s. 6(4)]. ...

In rejecting a Crown submission that the issuance of the Class B shares was a sham, Jorré J stated (at paras 100 and 101): …I do not see how there can be an element of deceit in this case where the ephemeral nature of the Class B shares and the resulting inability of Class B shareholders to enjoy any of the attributes of owing the shares was, so to speak in plain view, in the arrangement agreement and the plan of arrangement filed with the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta …. ...