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

. … Cameco has not allowed the oral interviews that they had done in previous years given the numbers requested and the fact that the subject matter of the audit is similar, if not identical as the ongoing litigation before the Tax Court of Canada. ... She then stated (at paras. 43, 44 and 50): Parliament could not have intended for there to be no restraint on how the Minister questions employees of a corporation. … The Minister’s interpretation imposes a much broader form of examination for discovery than allowed before the Tax Court of Canada without any of the procedural safeguards. The Minister arrived at a different answer than Cameco regarding transfer pricing and it is the role of the Tax Court of Canada to sort out who is correct. … The time and cost involved in allowing the Minister to interview more than 25 Cameco personnel scattered across the world is not proportional to the information being sought since the Tax Court of Canada will determine the issues that are the focus of the requested interviews. ...

After noting (at paras. 13-14) that, consistently with s. 2(b) of the Charter, “open and transparent judicial proceedings are fundamental principles of the Canadian legal system,” Noël J found that the Certificate was not adequate support for the s. 37 applications, stating (at paras 16, 20, and 22): …[T]he Certificate … does not give me a sufficient evidentiary basis to conclude that the public interest claim is justified. ... Considering that at this stage in the proceeding, no one except for the Minister or the Applicant has viewed the substance of the information being protected, it would be “inconceivable” to render a decision of such importance without seeing the undisclosed information. … Considering that the Certificate contains only generalized assertions, to be able to adequately assert its privilege, the Applicant should file with the Court on a confidential basis an un-redacted copy of the redacted documents that would relate to the public interest being claimed and any other documents or affidavits that may be appropriate to adequately support the validity of the alleged privilege. ... …[A] certificate is not an affidavit, which usually in the optics of fairness, affords the adverse party the opportunity to cross-examine a witness on their submitted evidence. … ...

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. ... In rejecting the Crown’s argument that this naming of a taxation year in the Notice of Reassessment was an error, Diner J referred to s. 152(8), indicated (at para. 86) that it applies “equally to reassessments as it does to assessments,” and then stated (at para. 87): Therefore, on a strict reading of the text of the statute, the 2016 Reassessment is presumed to be valid and binding …. ... But it is another for the Minister to then herself claim that the minor error undermines the validity of her own document to avoid adherence to it, when all other data points of the form are entirely accurate …. ...

Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 1014, aff'd 2021 FCA 189-- summary under Subsection 141.02(18) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 141.02- Subsection 141.02(18) Minister's rejection of bank's proposed methodology based on perceived distortions, was reasonable The Minister rejected (under s. 141.02(20)) the request of the registrant (the “Bank”) for approval of an “output method formula” ITC allocation method (“OMF”) on the basis inter alia that “the Bank’s OMF did not result in a reasonable approximation of the inputs it used to provide zero-rated financial services to non-residents of Canada” (para. 33) and, in particular, had three primary concerns: The Bank’s allocation of the Bank’s Treasury group’s interest expense and revenue amounts to the Bank’s three customer-facing operating groups permitted the Bank to recover a portion of the GST costs of those groups even though the operations of those groups were substantially confined to the provision of financial services to making Canadian exempt supplies – and, in particular, that approach violated the “first order supply rule” that “a business cannot recover GST incurred on inputs acquired to make exempt supplies, even when those exempt supplies enable the business to make other taxable supplies.” ... Before finding that the Minister’s decision to reject was reasonable (which relevantly was all that was required), Walker J stated (at para. 107): I have considered the Bank’s … argument that the Minister must approve a proposed methodology if it is fair and reasonable. I do not agree. … I find that subsection 145.01(5) has been superseded by the specific QI regime in section 141.02. ...

. … [T]here must be an element of an individual’s privacy concerns that elevates them to a public concern, beyond personal concerns and sensibilities (Sherman at para 54). ... Rémillard’s personal safety, an attack on his dignity, a risk of psychological harm or a risk to his professional reputation. … This leaves Mr. ... In my opinion, whether the important public interest is privacy or tax secrecy, the inconvenience of media attention in this case is at odds with the open court principle and does not in itself warrant the order sought. … As the Supreme Court made clear in Sherman, the implementation of the open court principle will necessarily infringe the privacy rights of litigants, so the preservation of that right cannot be a ground in itself for overriding the public nature of court proceedings. ...

Before the Federal Court rendered a decision on the Minister’s application, Dominelli and the Minister reached an agreement under which Dominelli undertook “to perform a detailed and exhaustive search of… records in my possession” and to “particularize my efforts” and “to request and direct my professional advisors to conduct an exhaustive search”, “to make inquiries of individuals and entities listed below” and to “particularize my efforts in making these inquiries,” all as described by affidavit with appended documents – with it being further agreed that if the Minister was not satisfied with the affidavit materials, she would ask that judgment be delivered on the compliance application. ... Pentney J stated (at para. 59) that he agreed “with Dominelli that the scope of the Minister’s discretion to determine that she is not satisfied that he has discharged his obligations under the agreement must be limited by the terms of their agreement ….” ... After noting the various documents that had been requested on audit and not provided, Pentney J stated (at para. 79): Understood in that context, the gap between what Dominelli promised to do and what his affidavit states is striking. … [H]is evidence does not establish that he has met the specific and detailed terms of the agreement and the Undertaking that he negotiated, and thus his motion cannot succeed. ...

The decision-maker could also emphasize the need to protect the integrity of the appeal process …. It stands to reason that a remission order should not normally be used as an alternative avenue of appeal for a taxpayer who has failed to pursue the remedies available under the Income Tax Act, let alone as a means of overriding a settlement to which the taxpayer has agreed. … Internal disagreement alone does not prove the outcome of the objection and appeal process to be wrong …. ...

. … I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the funds now in the hands of the Minister would likely be jeopardized if returned to the Respondent. The only real asset is the Chute Lake property; it is heavily mortgaged and subject to a foreclosure order. … The principal of the Respondent, Consiglio, or the companies with which he is associated, has a history of non-payment of taxes and bankruptcy. ...

. … …The Applicant chose to collect revenue generated by the machines personally, rather than through his corporation, and he cannot rely upon an accounting principle to ignore the legal reality of the lease and argue that the cost of the lease payments should be attributed to him personally and deductible from his personal income for the 2001 taxation year. … Words and Phrases matching principle ...

., if the decision was unreasonable) – although, of course, the substantive question of whether the requested adjustment was correct could not be reviewed by her. ... In any event, CRA had no legal obligation to issue a reassessment notice following the taxpayer request – that was a decision that was within its discretion (s. 152(4) used the word “may”). ...