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

. … After noting that the Court below (which it reversed) had dwelt on there being a close linkage of the Econox to the manufacturing and processing activity because it allowed it to be carried out under ideal thermal conditions, the Court went on to state (at para. 26): Would one claim that a building inside which welding is done in Montreal in January becomes, by that very fact, "a structure that is manufacturing or processing machinery or equipment "? …. The respondent's Econox serves primarily … to shelter the respondent's operations from the weather …. The intent of the legislature here cannot have been that any structure or building within which machining and processing activities of the type engaged in by the Respondent are conducted ipso facto satisfy the principal requirements to qualify as "qualified property" …. ...

. … No one has explained the day-to-day activities of each of the employees whose salaries are in question, nor did they testify. ... No documentary evidence was submitted by Kute Knit to support its claim …. … It did not demonstrate that the managers and supervisors actually worked on SR&ED activities that were eligible for the credit. ...

Furthermore, his situation is distinguishable from that of a taxpayer who makes regular returns to Quebec to visit spouse and children …. … Mr. ... However, the … [quoting Thomson] “spatial bounds within which he [spent] his life” were within Alberta throughout the Period ….. ...

. … … [A]t the acquisition date, there were no sources of goodwill that could explain the $6 billion gap which was attributed by Barrick to goodwill. That unexplained gap suggests that the DCF calculations used by Barrick's valuers to value Placer's land, its principal asset, were wrong. … [T]he danger identified by the majority in Murry of attributing a value to goodwill which actually inheres in an asset was readily apparent. … At the acquisition date, Placer was a land rich company which had no material property comprising legal goodwill. … [italics in original] ...

They were … a one off, lump sum, non-refundable payment made to secure an enduring advantage (the right to pay the lesser percentage rent) for the term of the FLL and most likely the term of any renewal of the FLL. ... As a matter of substance the payments, although called the prepayment of rent, did not involve the payment of rent at all. … What MFT acquired through the payments was a business with a different structure, a business in which the percentage rent payable was permanently reduced from what it otherwise would have been. … … The non-refundable nature of the payments suggests that they were not made to secure the right to occupy the premises under the lease and, rather, were capital in nature. ...

Agence du revenu du Québec, 2021 QCCQ 4841-- summary under Subparagraph 6(6)(a)(i) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 6- Subsection 6(6)- Paragraph 6(6)(a)- Subparagraph 6(6)(a)(i) a Montreal site qualified as a special work site for a 3 ½ year project The taxpayer, who had purchased a house in Richmond, Quebec in 1999 to reside there with his family, worked for his employer (“GPH”) as a project engineer regarding the construction or expansion of factories. Although normally, on such projects, the client of GPH would pay the accommodation costs of the GPH employees who worked on the project, that was not the case for a project for one of the clients in Varennes (outside Montreal, and 90 minutes away from Richmond), which started in 2014 and lasted for 3 ½ years. ... In finding that these amounts were not includible in the taxpayer’s income pursuant to the Quebec equivalents of ITA ss. 6(6)(a)(i) and (b)(i), Lapierre JCQ stated (at paras. 47, 49): [T]he fact that the wife and one of the children of the couple also lived in the Longueuil apartment is not very important in this specific case. … … Mr. ...

There is, in fact, no specific finding … that … any fixed place of business has been put at the disposal of these companies. … The High Court … held:...It is clear … that the Indian company only renders support services which enable the assessees in turn to render services to their clients abroad. Nariman J further found that there was no services PE under Article 5(2)(l), stating (at paras 17, 18, 20): Insofar as a service PE is concerned, the requirement of Article 5(2)(l) of the DTAA is that an enterprise must furnish services “within India” through employees or other personnel. … It has already been seen that none of the customers of the assessees are located in India or have received any services in India. This being the case, it is clear that the very first ingredient contained in Article 5(2)(l) is not satisfied. … If any customer is rendered a service in India, whether resident in India or outside India, a “service PE” would be established in India.... ...

In finding that there also was no reversible error here, and that it was reasonable to allocate a portion of the purchase price to the goodwill, Morissette, JCA stated (at para. 40): The SR acquired by SECA offered … services … that … varied by unit and by resident choice. ...

. … Whilst it may be true that only foreign nationals can obtain and hold a “working holiday visa” there is no requirement to hold one because of their nationality. … [I]t was not suggested that Ms Addy was not entitled to apply for any of the other range of visas which may have been available. ... The foregoing suggests that the Rates Act does not discriminate on the basis of nationality. … …[T]he O.E.C.D. ... III of Sch. 7 of the Rates Act, but rather her derivation of working holiday taxable income. … … Critically, both Australia and the United Kingdom are free to discriminate on the basis of tax residency. … ...

She did not purchase any furniture or furnishings to fit out the units she occupied, choosing to rent furnished spaces …. … Finally, the evidence established that Ms. ...