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

In this case … [a]s the Part I taxes were payable for the year ended August 27, 2004, these taxes were payable under section 157 by the balance-due date for that year. Therefore, they were outstanding immediately following that date and interest commenced to accrue immediately following the balance-due date and not from the date that the reassessment was actually issued. … Simard-Beaudry … confirmed that “the assessment does not create the debt, but is at most a confirmation of its existence”. ...

Miller J below that the Class 1(n)(ii) exclusion “only makes sense if distribution starts at a pipeline,” and further noted (at para 48): Northern & Central … stands for the proposition that the term “distribution” can encompass not only short-distance pipelines, in accordance with industry usage, but also long-distance transmission lines. It did not state a broader principle. … Woods J also rejected a Crown submission that the distribution process started with the tanker, in part because, unlike Northern & Central, the purpose of the processing here was “to make the gas more marketable” rather to merely “provide storage in the course of transmission.” In also rejecting the Crown’s position on “processing,” she stated (at paras 54 and 56): … It is clear that the product has been changed when it is transformed from a liquid to a gaseous state. … Furthermore...change... takes place during the facility’s blending operations, and... in chemical composition… [and] the operations …transform the product from being non-marketable in the North American market, to being marketable…. ...

In rejecting this submission and confirming the Minister’s assessment of Tusk Exploration under Part XII.6, Webb JA stated (at paras 28-29): … [T]he reference to “purports to renounce” in subsection 66(12.73) … is a reference to an amount that the corporation stated in the forms that it filed that it was renouncing and hence an amount that it claimed that it was renouncing. ... Furthermore, since subsection 66(12.73) … refers to both an amount that a corporation “purports to renounce” and to an amount that a corporation “can renounce”, amounts that a corporation “purports to renounce” cannot be restricted to only amounts that it “can renounce”. Because Parliament has chosen to use two different expressions, it must mean that Parliament did not intend for the two expressions to be synonymous. … [P]aragraph 66(12.73)(d) … provides that any reduction in the amounts renounced does not affect the calculation of the amount payable under Part XII.6…. ...

Canada, 2018 FCA 121-- summary under Subsection 66(12.6) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 66- Subsection 66(12.6) only a PBC can renounce In the course of a general discussion, Webb JA stated (at para. 5): Although subsection 66(12.6) of the ITA only refers to a “corporation”, since only a “ principal-business corporation ” can issue a flow-through share (as a result of the definition of flow-through share), only a principal-business corporation can renounce CEE under subsection 66(12.6) of the ITA. ...

I am not convinced and endorse the approach Justice Webb outlined in Sarmadi … repeated in Eisbrenner …. ...

In also intimating that a taxpayer is not to “apply” GAAR, he stated (at para. 16): Although … [Bocock J] states …that “all taxpayers, who are directly subject to GAAR assessments, that is, non-third parties, are required to consider and apply GAAR”, in my view it is more accurate to state that all taxpayers who are contemplating a transaction or series of transactions that would result in a tax benefit should consider the risk that GAAR will apply to deny the tax benefit. ... He also stated (at para. 33): … Simard-Beaudry … confirmed that “the assessment does not create the debt, but is at most a confirmation of its existence”. ...

He argued that since he had established that around ¼ of the payments received by him as cheques from a corporation, with which he did not deal at arm’s length, properly reimbursed him for business expenses, he had demolished the Minister’s “exact” assumption made in assessing him under s. 160 that the taxpayer had “provided no consideration for the cheques.” In rejecting this position, Monaghan JA stated (at para. 21) that the taxpayer “places far too much emphasis on the word ‘exact’ and gives insufficient weight to the word ‘demolish’ in … Hickman. ” and further stated (at para. 24) that “establishing some consideration for the cheques is not sufficient to demolish the Minister’s assumption,” noting in this regard (at para. 25) that the “purpose of pleading the assumption is to provide the appellant with notice of the case the appellant has to meet” and here, the taxpayer knew that, in the context of a s. 160 assessment, he needed to establish that he had provided fair market consideration for the cheques, “not merely some consideration.” ...

., to a Luxembourg s.à r.l (Alta Luxembourg – which, in turn, they held through an Alberta partnership). ... In the Court of Appeal, the Crown conceded that the gain of Alta Luxembourg was exempted from Canadian capital gains tax by virtue of the exclusion in Art. 13(4) of the Canada-Luxembourg Treaty which provided that the Alta Canada shares were not deemed immovable property (and thus not subject to Canadian capital gains tax) on the basis that the exploration licences were property of Alta Canada “in which the business of the company … was carried on.” ... He concluded (at para. 80): I agree with … MIL … that the object, spirit and purpose of the relevant provisions of the Luxembourg Convention is reflected in the words as chosen by Canada and Luxembourg. ...

He borrowed $695 million from CIBC so as to generate an interest deduction for the period prior to the departure, with the borrowed money simultaneously being reinvested with CIBC – but with the return thereon not being taxable to him prior to his departure due to the reinvestment occurring “through” intermediate Caymans companies who issued preferred shares rather than debt to him. ... The appellant suggests that his matters were “effectively” held in abeyance pending Grant, but offers no evidence that any such agreement existed or, more importantly, would have the effect of suspending interest. … Telfer … stated that a taxpayer who knowingly fails to pay a tax debt pending a decision in a related case “normally cannot complain that they should not have to pay interest” ….. ...

., to a Luxembourg s.à r.l (Alta Luxembourg – which, in turn, they held through an Alberta partnership). ... In the Court of Appeal, the Crown conceded that the gain of Alta Luxembourg was exempted from Canadian capital gains tax by virtue of the exclusion in Art. 13(4) of the Canada-Luxembourg Treaty which provided that the Alta Canada shares were not deemed immovable property (and thus not subject to Canadian capital gains tax) on the basis that the exploration licences were property of Alta Canada “in which the business of the company … was carried on,” but maintained its unsuccessful position in the Tax Court that the exemption of the gain constituted an abuse of the Treaty. ... He concluded (at para. 80): I agree with … MIL … that the object, spirit and purpose of the relevant provisions of the Luxembourg Convention is reflected in the words as chosen by Canada and Luxembourg. ...