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

Canada, 2018 FCA 112-- summary under Ordinary Meaning Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Ordinary Meaning supposed purpose cannot supplant clear language In confirming the finding below that the taxpayer, who came to Canada as a refugee claimant, was not entitled to the Canada child tax benefit, De Montigny JA stated (at para. 17): [T]his Court reiterated in …. Quinco … that where a provision is clear and unambiguous, its words must simply be applied; one cannot rely on a “supposed purpose” to “supplant” clear language. ...

Canada, 2020 FCA 201-- summary under Paragraph 251(1)(c) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 251- Subsection 251(1)- Paragraph 251(1)(c) a transaction with a financially subordinate company was a non-arm’s length transaction The taxpayer (“Keybrand”), its wholly-owning parent (“ BWS ”), and another Strassburger-family company were guarantors of loans made to a start-up company (“Vidabode”) by GE Capital. ... After then noting the “directing mind” test applied in the Robson Leather case (whose facts revealed “a striking similarity,” as in both cases there was “substantial debt” owing by a company with poor prospects to the relevant family – para. 54), Webb JA stated (at para. 58): Given the degree of financial dependence of Vidabode on BWS and Keybrand and the lack of any negotiation with respect to the terms and conditions (including the price) related to the share subscription, it is more likely than not that Keybrand controlled both sides of the transaction related to the issue of shares by Vidabode to Keybrand. He also stated (at paras. 68-69): [T]he lack of ordinary commercial terms that would be agreed upon by parties acting in their own interests may support a finding that the transaction is not an arm’s length transaction and, therefore, that the parties were not dealing with each other at arm’s length. … [I]n an extraordinary situation such as here, where a person pays in excess of $14 million for shares that do not have any value, the magnitude of the discrepancy raises doubts that the parties were dealing with each other at arm’s length. ...

In affirming the findings below by Ouimet J, including that the reassessment of Laplante made after the normal reassessment period was valid, Boivin JA stated (at para. 4): He was … correct to identify a substantive element and an intentional element, being the two elements which must be present in order to conclude that there is a simulation under Article 1451 …. Furthermore … the judge … did not err in finding a simulation in this case, i.e., that the appellant was the true beneficiary of the amounts distributed by DL Trust to the seeming beneficiaries. ...

Paletta, 2022 FCA 86-- summary under Business Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(1)- Business common law concept of business informs the s. 248(1) definition Before going on to find that the taxpayer’s activity of FX straddle trading, which had the appearance of commerciality but was not engaged in for profit, was not a business, and after noting (at para. 34) “the long accepted common law definition of business which simply requires that the activity be undertaken in the pursuit of profit,” Noël C.J. stated (at para. 38): … Stewart … made it clear that the test being devised was consistent with the traditional common law definition of “business”. ... As in such circumstances, the private law-- the common law on the facts of Stewart-- fills the gap, the Supreme Court explained that the Stewart test gave effect to the common law definition of “business” (Stewart, para. 51) …. ...

After noting (at para. 11) that the ordinary meaning of “refrigerator” was informed by dictionary definitions that “mention the cooling of food, but … also … contemplate cooling other items,” and (at para. 7) that there was “no dispute … that the industry does not treat wine coolers as refrigerators,” and before dismissing the appeal, Locke JA stated (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 the Court of Appeal, Stratas JA stated (at para. 3) that “ Oceanspan is … directly on point … [and] binds us, just as it bound the Tax Court.” ...

In the Court of Appeal, Stratas JA stated (at para. 3) that “ Oceanspan is … directly on point … [and] binds us, just as it bound the Tax Court.” ... Those reasons noted (at para. 39) that a “good example of when section 250.1 operates is subsection 104(13) … [which] may apply to a resident beneficiary of a non-resident trust.” ...

The Centre promptly commenced this application in the FCA under s. 168(2)(b) of the Act and Rule 300(b) of the Federal Courts Rules for an order prohibiting publication of a copy of the notice of intention to revoke – and thus prohibiting the revocation itself – until a later date based on the timing of when the Minister has disposed of its objection to the notice. In dismissing the application for this order, Laskin JA stated (at paras 15, 18- 20): It is a long-established principle that irreparable harm cannot be inferred, but must be established by clear and compelling evidence … [T]he evidence … does not meet the required standard [of irreparable harm]. ... The evidence that significant numbers of parents would withdraw their children from the school within one or two months is also neither clear nor compelling. … While the Centre asserts that “[t]he loss of tuition revenue and the reduction of the donor base for School related fundraising will make ABCO financially incapable of operating the School, leading to its closure,” it has not …provided its current budget or other supporting financial information. … Its financial statements for 2016 also show an excess of revenues over expenditures of $307,242. … …[T]he evidence is in our view insufficient to establish irreparable harm. ...

Thus, the “series’ overall result [was] consistent with the object, spirit and purpose of the capital gains regime as previously identified by this Court—that is, to tax real economic gains: Triad Gestco … “ (para. 54). ...

In the Court of Appeal, Stratas JA stated (at para. 3) that “ Oceanspan is … directly on point … [and] binds us, just as it bound the Tax Court.” ...