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

Furthermore, CRA had subsequently reassessed the years in issue and, under ss. 152(8) and 169, such “reassessments [were] valid and binding until set aside by the Tax Court” – so that it was not relevant that, prior to the proposal letter and such reassessments, the taxpayer had requested an internal review of the Minister’s decision not to admit most of the years in question to the voluntary disclosure program. ...

Gleason JA did not consider that doctrine to be applicable, but found that even if the doctrine did apply, it did not work in the taxpayer’s favour, stating (at para. 27): [B]oth common sense and the expert evidence establish that the reason for administration of dental anesthetics- including those containing epinephrine- is pain control …. ...

As a technical matter, s. 112(3.1) did not apply to deny any portion of this capital loss because the NSULC paid all its dividends on a separate class of preferred shares that it had issued as a stock dividend – rather than on the common shares on which the LP had realized the loss. ...

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, 2021 FCA 17-- summary under Effective Date Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Effective Date price adjustment clause eliminated any possible value discrepancy between the FMV of the transferred property and the consideration therefor Before finding that s. 160 did not apply to a s. 55(3)(a) spin-off transaction in which each component transaction entailed a value-for-value exchange including the issuance and redemption of preferred shares with a price adjustment clause, Noël CJ noted, in passing, at para. 50: …160(1)(e)(i) … provides that the consideration is inadequate when the fair market value of the property transferred exceeds the fair market value of the consideration given at the time of the transfer (see Birchcliff Energy Ltd. v. ...

He stated that there indeed was consideration going the other way in the form of “Newco in turn … surrender[ing] the shares which had a corresponding $30 million value in its hands” (para. 69). ...

True, at that point Oldco had divested itself of its most valuable business assets – but it held in lieu thereof Newco preferred shares to be redeemed for a $30M note owing to it by Newco, which had those assets. ...

If it is unambiguous, it will generally be sufficient to apply it, as the purpose of the provision cannot be used to create an implied exception to what is otherwise clearly set out …. ...

She also stated (at para. 23) that “there was ample evidence before the Tax Court … to conclude that the test for gross negligence was satisfied.” ...

The resulting understanding of legislation as expressed in the jurisprudence is not an improper exercise of judicial legislation, rather it is precisely what courts are required to do …. ...

This is the role of the legislature, not the courts …. ...