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 Queen, 94 DTC 6050, [1994] 1 CTC 3 (FCA)-- summary under Onus Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Onus demolition of assumptions by taxpayer leaves Minister with the ordinary civil-suit persuasive burden After rejecting the taxpayer’s submission that where some of the Minister’s assumptions were demolished by the taxpayer, the Minister’s position must necessarily fail unless the Minister can show that the remaining undemolished assumptions by themselves support the assessments, Hugessen JA went on to state (at p. 6053) that where the Minister has pleaded assumptions or the assumptions have been rebutted, “it remains open to the Minister … to establish the correctness of his assessment if he can” and that “in undertaking this task, the Minister bears the ordinary burden of any party to a lawsuit, namely to prove the facts which support his position ….” ...

In the course of rejecting the taxpayer’s appeal, Noël JA stated (at para 2): … In our view, having requested additional information from the appellant and not having received that information, and having requested a waiver from the appellant which the appellant refused to give, the Minister was clearly entitled to issue a reassessment to protect his rights prior to the expiry of the three-year period. … ...

This … is not a basis for relief.… [I]t is “well settled that a taxpayer does not become entitled to relief simply because another taxpayer similarly situated was assessed differently” (Roy v. The Queen, 2011 TCC 299 …). ...

Woods JA has found that this position is incorrect, stating (at paras. 40, 42): The CRA’s view … is that the taxpayer relief provisions cannot affect a filing requirement which restricts the issuance of a dividend refund. The problem with this reasoning is that this is exactly what the taxpayer relief provisions are intended to do — enable the Minister to provide relief from strict filing requirements.... ...

Canada (Border Services Agency), 2021 FCA 82-- summary under Ordinary Meaning Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Ordinary Meaning rebuttable presumption that the ordinary meaning of a word should prevail over its industry meaning After noting that the ordinary meaning of refrigerator did not require that the device be used for the storage of food, Locke JA rejected a taxpayer submission that a wine cooler was not a refrigerator notwithstanding that there was “no dispute … that the industry does not treat wine coolers as refrigerators” (para 7), stating (at para. 20): I do not wish to suggest that the ordinary meaning of a term should always apply even where it has a meaning in the industry. But there is a presumption to that effect, and that presumption is not rebutted by the mere fact that the industry meaning of the term in question differs from the ordinary meaning. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­ ...

In rejecting the taxpayer’s position, Webb JA stated (para. 18): [T]he appellant … acknowledged that the monies he received were used for his personal and living expenses. He therefore intended to receive monies in excess of the related expenditures … [I]n effect he did have the intention of earning a profit, i.e. the intention of receiving amounts in excess of his expenses. ...

In dismissing the Attorney General’s appeal of this order, De Montigny JA found (at paras 8 and 11): … While I accept that, generally speaking, the CRA’s treatment of other taxpayers is irrelevant when assessing whether to grant discretionary relief to a given individual, the Judge could reasonably infer … that the CRA’s decision not to recommend remission was premised, at least in part, on the respondent not being in similar circumstances as the SDL employees. Such being the case, the Judge’s finding that the disputed questions were formally and legally relevant and went to the very reasonableness of the CRA’s decision, was open to him. … This case stands for the proposition that a broad view must be adopted in determining whether a proposed disclosure is in respect of proceedings relating to the administration or enforcement of the ITA. ...

Pelletier JA found (at paras 11, 16, 19, 20 and 21): … [T]he reason for the delay was the perceived need to obtain all the relevant documentation prior to filing a notice of appeal, a process which took some time. ... This is an error of law that warrants our intervention. … The evidence is that Mr. Bygrave spent the period between the expiry of the 90 day period and the filing of his application for an extension of time gathering this documentary evidence. … [T]he time to secure those documents [respecting the circumstances surrounding the sale] would be a circumstance explaining the delay in the bringing of the request for an extension of time. ...

Ng – so that he had satisfied the occupancy requirements of ETA s. 254(2)(g). ... Ngai was not a “particular individual” for the purposes of section 254 of the ETA. … In my view, only an individual who is a “particular individual” for the purposes of section 254 is eligible to apply for the new housing rebate. … In going on to find that the Ontario rebate was not available, Webb JA noted that under ETA s. 126(2) and the referenced ITA provisions “a nephew is not related to his aunt or uncle and therefore, Mr. ...

. … [T]he contention of the appellant could lead to absurd consequences. ... Similarly, he stated (at para. 55): [T]here is no doubt that broad expressions such as “taxable supply” and “commercial activity” … must be interpreted irrespective of considerations of lawfulness, public order or morality. That among other things is the reason that income derived from prostitution or the sale of drugs are taxable …. ...