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

After noting that the trial Judge, in reliance on Aridi, had found that a misrepresentation had to be that of the taxpayer (the Estate) rather than of its accountants, Webb JA noted (at para. 44) that the words of s. 152(4)(a)(i) "could mean that the person filing the return must be the one who was negligent, careless or wilfully in default," but found (at para. 46) that it was not necessary to resolve this point as there was a sufficient basis for Campbell J's finding that the failure to report the recapture in the original return was a misrepresentation attributable to the Estate's neglect: any detailed review of the terminal return by the executor would have caused him to query the accountants as to why the Victoria Park property did not appear on the disposition Schedule – which, in turn, likely would have resulted in their identification of the recapture-reporting error (para. 50). ... See summary under General Concepts – Onus. ...

. … …[I]f restitution was not possible before the date of the declaratory judgment of the Superior Court, it necessarily follows that there was no debt (in this context, an unjustified enrichment), before that date. ... Even taking as given that there was an unjustified enrichment in this case on the January 6, 2014 judgment date of the Superior Court, it nonetheless remains that the Minister assessed before that date, namely, April 30, 2013. … [I]f the judgment of the Superior Court had the effect of creating unjustified enrichment commencing on January 6, 2014, it remains that there was no enrichment when restitution of the amounts at issue was made by the appellant in October 2015. ...

. … The services do not have the usual characteristics of management services which typically involve decision-making on behalf of the business … [nor of] of administrative services which typically involve support services. ...

Before going on to note (at para. 52) the similarity of Paletta to Moloney (as both cases involved “an attempt to pass off as a business an activity that is aimed exclusively at avoiding one’s tax”), he indicated (at para. 48) that “ Backman illustrates the point that activities devoted solely to the avoidance of one’s tax cannot give rise to a business under the Act.” ... " He stated (at para. 59): “ Friedberg confirms that the straddle trading strategy can legitimately be used to reduce one’s tax when the trades are made in the course of a business, but it can find no application where, as here, there is no source of income to begin with.” ...

., after finding the common law distinction between a contract for the sale of goods and a contract for work, labour and materials to be irrelevant, stated (p. 6318): "... the Respondent does not enter into pure service contracts, but, rather processes goods to the operator's/customer's specification which it utilizes to perform the specialized services required of it by its customer. ...

Malone J.A. also stated (at p. 6881): "... as indicated in Bon-Secours, once ambiguity becomes an issue, the legislative provision should be given a strict or liberal interpretation depending on the purpose underlying the provision. ...

. … The only unusual aspect of the subleases in this case is that the tenants have access to a nine-hole golf course. ...

In finding that the U.S. corporation was associated with each Canadian corporation (with the result that each Canadian corporation was associated with the other two Canadian corporations under the pre-1972 version of s. 256(2)), Jackett C.J. noted (p. 5037) that the rules in s. 39(4) of the pre-1972 Act applied "for the purposes of this section", that those rules determined the amount of tax payable under Part I by associated corporations and that it followed "that section 39(4) has no application to determine whether two corporations are associated unless they are both subject to income tax under Part I of the Income Tax Act ". ...

" ...

Before affirming a finding of the Tax Court Judge that the taxpayer, in substance, had thereby been deducting a reserve under s. 20(1)(m), McDonald J.A. stated (para. 20): "... ...