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

It seems to me that on the evidence obtained by CRA investigators the only argument potentially available to them was one that was successfully employed in R v Patry, 2018 BCSC 1524 … where Justice Block entered an acquittal in analogous circumstances on the following basis: … I am left with a reasonable doubt on the matter of the necessary intent for these tax evasion offences. ... He cannot be convicted for being wrong, only for knowingly being wrong. … The fact that mens rea might have been negated in the prosecution of Messrs. ... This was a reasonable position …. ...

Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 1014, aff'd 2021 FCA 189-- summary under Subsection 141.01(5) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 141.01- Subsection 141.01(5) flexibility in choice of ITC allocation method for non-FIs Before turning to s. 141.02 and finding that the Minister had reasonably rejected the registrant’s proposed allocation method presented under s. 141.01(18), Walker J stated (at para. 14): The ETA does not require a specific allocation method or the use of specific accounting systems that would separate each property or service that a business uses in its provision of taxable and exempt supplies (Magog … 2001 FCA 210 at para 17 …). ...

. … There is no evidence that the Applicant was intentionally neglecting or avoiding its responsibility to maintain proper records. ... …[T]he Delegate made the statement that “the taxpayer did not demonstrate that sufficient action was taken to remedy this situation within a reasonable timeframe as returns continued to remain outstanding until 2012” without clarification of what “sufficient action” was expected, and what “reasonable timeframe” was expected. … I find that the statement constitutes the delivery of a punishment to the Applicant for perceived failure to meet the Delegate’s unclear expectations. … [N]o argument was presented … that the finding is supportable in fact or law. ...

Ahmed J found that the decision was unreasonable, stating (at 23-25): … [T]he LAS Officer’s opinion letter lacks any real analysis of … whether the exception to statute barred dates in section 152(4)(a)(i) could be applied. … [This] is an inadequate analysis. ... In light of the conclusory analysis which does not conduct any textual, contextual, and purposive analysis as the Supreme Court of Canada requires, I agree with the Applicant that the decision is unreasonable. … ...

. … [C]ertainty is an essential ingredient. … [U]nless the agreement is contrary to public order, the contract is valid and binding. ...

., they were addressed to them personally, and stated inter alia: Your personal income tax returns and any other related or associated entities have been selected for audit …. [Y]ou may have offshore holdings that you have failed to disclose …. In order to expedite and facilitate our audit, we will require a clear understanding of all entities with which you had a connection or affiliation during the taxation years noted above. … Please send us back the attached questionnaire fully completed within 30 days …. ...

Moreover, it has still not reassessed … Mr. Prince. In the alternative, … if the letter of December 17, 2018 was, in effect, a decision that the CRA was reassessing the Applicant, then the Federal Court would be denied jurisdiction by the effect of section 18.5 of the FCA due to the availability of an appeal of the decision. … Either way, I do not have jurisdiction. ...

After the assessment was vacated pursuant to a consent judgment, CRA issued a Notice of Reassessment showing the cancellation of the penalty and a refund of the $1M but denying any refund interest on the basis that s. 164(3) requires a taxation year to be specified in order for interest to be paid – and a s. 163.2 penalty is not calculated by reference to any particular taxation years. ... The onus, however, cannot be on the taxpayer to identify which taxation year(s) ‑ whether any, some or none ‑ apply to the Minister’s penalty assessment, particularly when, as here, the Reassessment itself indicates a taxation year on its face. ...

KPMG LLP, 2016 FC 1322-- summary under Subsection 231.2(3) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 231.2- Subsection 231.2(3) s. 231.2(3) overrode CPA duty of client confidence KPMG LLP sought to quash an order of Noël J- that authorized the Minister to impose on KMPG a requirement pursuant to s. 231.2(3) to disclose confidential information relating to certain of its unnamed clients relating to their participation in a tax structure known as the Offshore Company Structure – on the grounds that Rule 208 of the Ontario Code of Professional Conduct for CPAs (and similar rules in other provinces) provided that “a member or firm shall not disclose any confidential information concerning the affairs of any client [or] former client….” After noting (at para 7) that there was a listed exception from this rule where “such information is required to be disclosed by order of lawful authority,” and before dismissing the motion, Crampton CJ stated (at para 9): In my view, the language of s. 231.2(3) of the Act is clear and overrides the general confidentiality rule imposed by Rule 208 of the Code. … [C]ancelling or varying Justice Noël’s Order … would appear to be inconsistent with Parliament’s intent in enacting s. 231.2 (R. v. ...

. … We have to confirm that … there are no circumstances that would support the cancellation of the tax on excess TFSA contributions. ... Sangha’s circumstances. … [T]he Decision was not reasonable. I find that the Decision does not reflect a coherent assessment of the relevant law and significant facts and submissions from the record and that the Minister’s refusal to exercise their discretion was not intelligible or justified. ... The guidance in Vavilov makes clear the importance of looking to the reasons given by an administrative decision maker and warns the reviewing court against providing supplemental reasons to buttress the result in the decision in question …. ...