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

The ARQ determined that the amounts paid by the Government of Canada to MDA were “contract payments” (defined in s.1029.8.17 (c) (ii) of the Quebec Taxation Act to include “an amount in respect of an expenditure of a current nature … of a taxpayer … payable by the Government of Canada … or other public authority … for scientific research and experimental development to be performed for the authority) for SR&ED work for the RCM Program, so that the bulk of the work did not qualify for the Quebec tax credit for salaries and wages. ... Regarding the second test, he found that: “Canada assumed both the risks related to the additional costs of the RCM Program and those related to the possibility that the technology developed for the purpose of the project would not perform as expected” (para. 147) and “would lose its investment if the satellites exploded” (para. 148) “Had there been insufficient funds … MDA would have been paid for the work undertaken up to the end of the contract for Phases B/C” (para. 151) and “ MDA would have been paid had the Government of Canada terminated the contract for Phase D” (para. 153). ...

Mainville JCA stated (at para. 72, TaxInterpretations translation): [T]he portion of the incentives received in respect of payments made by the appellant to the insurers for the purpose of the investment account provided for in the Contract (approximately two-thirds in the appellant's case) come within paragraph 87(w) … but … the portion of the incentives received in respect of payments made by the appellant to the insurers for the purpose of life insurance coverage only (approximately one-third in the appellant's case) are not. In further finding that it was irrelevant that in fact Verrier did not generate any income from the policy under s. 148(1), Mainville JCA stated (at para. 75): If the property in question is reasonably likely to generate income, paragraph 87(w) … can apply, regardless of whether the property actually generates income or whether the taxpayer decides to dispose of it before it generates income. ...

. … [I]f the term … of the lease was irrelevant to the method of calculation of the payment, then any argument that the payment was in truth … a computation of prepayment of rent is extremely difficult to mount. … The taxpayer has, in effect, purchased the right to have the better lease with the lower rent. … The method of calculation of the prepayments was the same across the different leases, even though the duration of the leases varied. ...

. … [I]f the term … of the lease was irrelevant to the method of calculation of the payment [as was the case here], then any argument that the payment was in truth … a computation of prepayment of rent is extremely difficult to mount. … The taxpayer has, in effect, purchased the right to have the better lease with the lower rent. … ...

The Court found that the appellant was a financial institution under s. 149(1)(a)(iii) as a person “whose principal business is as a … dealer in … financial instruments.” ... The Court also noted (also at para. 26, TaxInterpretations translation): Furthermore, in Elgin Mills Leslie Holdings … the Tax Court of Canada indicated that a cheque is a “financial instrument” within the meaning of subsection 123(1) …. ...

., the plaintiffs had transferred the property …. It was the deed of sale, in the clause entitled “Price,” that “entitl[ed] … to proceeds of disposition of the property, ” to repeat the words used in TA section 248. … It was otherwise and as bare owner, which necessarily involves the transfer of property and its disposition, that 9212-7133 Québec Inc. granted to the plaintiffs a dismemberment of the right of property, in the form of a right of usufruct. ...

Burton v Commissioner of Taxation, [2018] FCA 1857, aff'd [2019] FCAFC 141-- summary under Subsection 126(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 126- Subsection 126(1) a foreign tax credit was reduced by ½ when only ½ of a capital gain was brought into income The taxpayer was an Australian resident who was taxed at the 15% long-term U.S. capital gains rate on his gains on disposal of U.S. oil and gas drilling rights. ...

ARQ, 2016 QCCQ 9461-- summary under Subparagraph (c)(i) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 127- Subsection 127(9)- Qualified Property- Paragraph (c)- Subparagraph (c)(i) transporting trucks with decanting tanks used in M&P Some of the trucks in the fleet of trucks of the taxpayer (“Sanivac”) were non-customized trucks used to pump out used oil from customers’ facilities, and drive back to the Sanivac facilities, where they would be stationary for about 12 hours, during which time the oils were allowed to settle in the trucks’ tanks – after which they were transferred to other tanks at the facility for further processing. ... In finding that these trucks were qualified properties for purposes of the Quebec investment tax credit under s. 1029.8.36.166.40 of the Taxation Act (an approximate equivalent of ITA s. 127(9) – qualified property – (c)(i)), Guimond JCQ stated (at paras. 43-45, 50): [I]t has been demonstrated the combination of the processes were necessary inter alia in order to ensure the traceability of PCBs when identified. ... Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that the modifications made to the equipment were necessary in order to obtain oil of a better quality for business use and in order to lend itself to sale at a higher price. … One fact remains, which is that the equipment was purchased and modified for the specific purpose of acquiring contaminated, diluted and snarled materials for their purification and resale as a finished product. ...

Although s. 206.1 of the Quebec Sales Tax Act denied an input tax refund for tax on supplies of electricity, s. 206.3 provided an exclusion from this rule where the electricity was used for a purpose that came within the exemption in s. 17(aa) of the Quebec Retail Sales Tax Act (“RSTA”), which exempted “sales of electricity … which a person … uses to produce movable property … intended for sale/” The Court of Quebec followed C.R.I. ...

Article 168(a) provided: In so far as the goods and services are used for the purposes of the taxed transactions of a taxable person, the taxable person shall be entitled, in the Member State in which he carries out these transactions, to deduct the following from the VAT which he is liable to pay: … the VAT due or paid in that Member State in respect of supplies to him of goods or services, carried out or to be carried out by another taxable person; The Court stated (at paras 33-35): It is clear … that, without the reconstruction of that pump station, it would have been impossible to connect the buildings …to that pump station, with the result that that reconstruction was essential for completing that project and that, consequently, in the absence of such reconstruction, Iberdrola would not have been able to carry out its economic activity. ... The fact that the municipality of Tsarevo also benefits from that service cannot justify the right to deduct corresponding to that service being denied to Iberdrola if the existence of such a direct and immediate link is established …. The Court concluded (at para 41): … Article 168(a) … must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person has the right to deduct input value added tax in respect of a supply of services consisting of the construction or improvement of a property owned by a third party when that third party enjoys the results of those services free of charge and when those services are used both by the taxable person and by the third party in the context of their economic activity, in so far as those services do not exceed that which is necessary to allow that taxable person to carry out the taxable output transactions and where their cost is included in the price of those transactions. ...