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

. … …The facts in Schwartz [for losses arising from the retraction of an employment offer] are too different for the decision to be meaningful to the present inquiry. ...

. … This result would be extremely difficult for the Canada Revenue Agency to audit. ...

. … ...

In finding that ss. 128.1(1)(b) and (c) did not apply, Smith J stated (at para. 35): [T]he effective date upon which the Appellant became a resident of Canada … was when the Canadian dairy farm was acquired on June 15, 1998. ...

The CRA has already allowed home office expenses of $1,763 for 2012 and $2,333 for 2013 as well as office supplies in the amount of $361.00 pursuant to subsection 18(2) …. ...

On the basis of the construction invoices and photos and on the basis of giving the taxpayer the benefit of the doubt by treating “substantially all … as indicating no less than 90%” (para 11), Russell found that the rebate application was submitted more than two years after substantial completion of the renovation project, thus rendering per s. 256(3)(a)(iii) ETA the rebate as not available. ...

The evidence has established that JA is seriously lacking in ability to engage in social interactions … substantially all of the time. ...

. … I cannot find that the loan was repaid before the end of Steel's 1988 taxation year. ...

It was only in 2012 when Vocan started to supply assessment reports to Misir & Company, a personal injury law firm that informed Vocan that HST should be charged and collected on their reports, that Vocan then resumed charging insurance companies HST for assessment reports in the 2012 Period. ...

Owen J rejected the CIBC position- that such loss was deemed by s. 39(2) to be a capital loss from foreign currency and therefore was excluded from the application of the s. 40(3.6) stop-loss rule, which applied only if the loss were viewed as having arisen from the disposition of the subsidiary’s shares – indicating that this position was inconsistent with a statement in the BMO case that: “[t]he gain or loss arising as a result of a disposition of a particular property was (and still is) determined under subsection 40(1)” before any application of s. 39(2). ...