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 dismissing the taxpayer’s application for judicial review of the decision to impose the penalties, Shirzad J stated (at paras 37 and 38): … If taxpayers could re-characterize taxable income or benefits as non-taxable benefits in their applications to the VDP and thereby escape penalties from future audits for having “disclosed” the amounts in this application, it would be contrary to the purpose of the VDP and its public policy rationale, which is meant to promote compliance with Canada’s tax laws …. ...

In rejecting the addition of this condition, Southcott J stated (at paras. 34, 37): … EEIGI is seeking this relief without having articulated with any precision a basis in either fact or law for its concern that it may in the future face dissemination of the Required Information in a manner that offends the Charter. … [R]equiring CRA to disclose, in the course of an investigation, the fact that the investigation is taking place could compromise the investigation. ...

Southcott J stated (at paras. 34, 37): … EEIGI is seeking this relief without having articulated with any precision a basis in either fact or law for its concern that it may in the future face dissemination of the Required Information in a manner that offends the Charter. … [R]equiring CRA to disclose, in the course of an investigation, the fact that the investigation is taking place could compromise the investigation. ...

In rejecting BMONB’s claim of privilege, Kane J stated (at paras. 108 and 116): As … found in Information Commissioner [2013 FCA 104], not all end products of legal advice fall on the continuum of solicitor-client communications; an end product is not privileged “except to the extent that [it] communicates the very legal advice given by counsel” (at para 31). … The Court’s review of the legal opinions does not serve to establish that the MSPM falls on the continuum of solicitor-client communications. ...

. … The Federal Court of Appeal discussed the principles of procedural fairness in Canadian Pacific Railway v. ... It would be problematic if an a priori decision as to whether the standard of review is correctness or reasonableness generated a different answer to what is a singular question that is fundamental to the concept of justice – was the party given a right to be heard and the opportunity to know the case against them? ...

Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 313-- summary under Excess TFSA Amount Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 207.01- Subsection 207.01(1)- Excess TFSA Amount current year's contributions were not offset by current year's withdrawals Although the facts are more intricate, they essentially involved the taxpayer, in early 2021, promptly withdrawing $29,000 from his TFSA when he discovered (before being so notified by CRA) that he had over-contributed by $20,000 – then shortly thereafter, contributing a further $6,000 to his TFSA, not realizing that under the “excess TFSA amount” definition, such contributions were not offset by his “excess” TFSA withdrawal earlier in the year of $9,000 because it is only a prior, not a current, year’s withdrawals that restore contribution room. ... CRA denied his request for relief under s. 207.06(1) on the basis that the removal of the excess contributions did not occur within a reasonable time frame – but provided no explanation as to why the $9,000 excess withdrawal in 2021 did not offset the further 2021 contributions. ...

In declining the Applicants’ request for judicial review, Walker J paraphrased (at para. 32) the Guidelines in Policy Statement P-255 on accepting late-election, including a requirement that “both corporations must have filed all GST/HST returns as required,” noted (at para. 33) that “[a]s long as the Minister does not fetter her discretion and improperly limit the scope of her analysis, she may rely on the factors identified in the Guidelines in making her decision,” and then stated (at paras. 40, 58): [S]ubsection 238(1) provides that all registrants (registered or not) “shall file a return with the Minister for each reporting period …”. The fact that a registrant may have a nil return does not exempt them from the requirement to file returns. … The filing of the Billing Agent Election and the assumption by Castle of the administrative tasks of collection, reporting and remittance of CBS’s GST/HST does not affect the status of CBS as the supplier of the goods and services in respect of which the tax is collectible. ... She concluded (at para. 88): The [CRA] Decision is reasonable when read within the Vavilov framework for intelligibility and justification, taking into account “the evidence before the decision maker, the submissions of the parties [and] publicly available policies or guidelines that informed the decision maker’s work […]” (Vavilov at para 94). ...

McDonald J found (at para 44) that this 2014 letter was a reviewable decision, but went on to find (at para 51) that the CRA decision was reasonable: … [T]he CRA…concluded that tax avoidance may have been a factor in the corporate reorganization. ... These conclusions are within the range of possible outcomes of the MAP process. … In further rejecting an argument that CRA had unfairly not let CGI know the basis for CRA’s concerns, McDonald J stated (at para. 59): The basis for CGI’s application for a refund was the TD Securities decision. ...

In denying the taxpayers’ applications to set aside the Minister’s adverse decisions, Campbell J stated (at paras 22 and 25): … I find that establishing whether the Minister’s discretion applies to s. 129 is a jurisdictional question with respect to an interpretation of the ITA which is not within this Court’s authority to decide. I also find that… the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in 1057513 … supports this conclusion.... ...

. … When assessing a request for the re-apportionment of an SBC, the Minister should also have regard to whether denial of the request might possibly result in the Minister’s inability to collect outstanding tax arrears from a taxpayer. … [T]he decision [is] unreasonable because it is not apparent or transparent that Forbes’ financial hardship was a factor in the decision-making process. ...