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

He went on to indicate (at para. 49) that in any event, the daughter could be considered to be “subject to tax”: … The income tax legislation … applies to all Canadian residents … because they may, in one year or another, earn business income in Quebec…. ... Before cancelling the reassessments, Cameron JCQ stated (at para 57): …On a direct reading of the text, giving the words their ordinary meaning, … the fact that the student does or does not have to pay a tax in a given year does not have a bearing on the option of the parent using the credit. ... In that light, a generous interpretation should be given, … and the Court should not read in restrictions that are not to be found in the legislator’s choice of the words used and those not used. ...

. … The respondents' contention that the phrase "is presently entitled" should be construed to mean " really is " presently entitled (emphasis added) for that income year, such that, for "a reasonable period" after the end of the income year, later events could subsequently disentitle a beneficiary who was presently entitled immediately before the end of the income year, is rejected. ...

. … [The] food-grade mineral fibre substrate [used] instead of soil … plays the same role as soil …. ...

Arden LJ found (at paras 62, 63, 64 and 65): … The view that a policy may be changed if there is good reason to do so is supported by the judgment of Lord Dyson in WL Congo …, by Elias LJ in Lewisham…, and by Bhatt Murphy…. … As Bingham LJ put it in MFK, the taxpayer's only legitimate expectation is that he will be taxed according to statute, not concession or a wrong view of the law…. … In the present case taxpayers with Mansworth v Jelley losses were not in the same position if they were in open years as opposed to closed years. ... Arden LJ further found (at paras 72, 73, and 85): … [T]he question is whether or not there has been sufficient unfairness to prevent correction of the mistake. It is clear from the authorities that the unfairness has to reach a very high level: see, in particular, the holding of Simon Brown LJ in Unilever where he held that it … had to be outrageously or conspicuously unfair. … Arden LJ allowed HMRC’s appeal and dismissed the taxpayer’s notice, finding (at para 90): … [T]he respondent has to show conspicuous unfairness. … I consider that this is not shown…. ...

Bernardin, 2021 QCCA 625-- summary under Paragraph 12(1)(c) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 12- Subsection 12(1)- Paragraph 12(1)(c) interest that arose prior to a class action judgment becoming res judicata was non-taxable – interest arising thereafter was taxable even though judgment not yet quantified An individual, by virtue of being part of a group of class action claimants, was awarded damages in 2004 of $1,200 for each of the eight winter seasons in which she had endured snowmobile noise. ... It is sufficient (and here I paraphrase Rand J. in … Farm Security …) that there be a use or retention by one person of a sum of money belonging to or owed to another. ... But not here …. Once the November 30, 2004 judgment became res judicata, there was a definite sum owing (a liquidated and certain debt) on which actual interest could accrue. ...

Custeau, 2020 QCCA 1496-- summary under Subsection 248(10) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(10) s. 248(10) “in contemplation of” test appropriately applied only on a forward-looking basis where the historical transaction was purely commercial When a family small business corporation (the “Corporation”) was in financial difficulty, a Quebec regional development fund and affiliated fund (the “Funds”) agreed (with an objective of saving jobs in the region) to inject equity capital in the Corporation on terms largely dictated by them – which entailed the funds investing (in 1997 and 1998) in the common shares of the Corporation (or in shares that were converted into the common shares of the Corporation), so that the paid-up capital of the taxpayers’ shares was boosted from a nominal amount to $1.45 million due to PUC averaging. ... The excerpt from Trustco shows that this may be an alternative exercise depending on the circumstances of the case. … Copthorne … approved both approaches because each situation is an individual case. ...

Before reversing the decision below that the masters were Class 8(j) tangible capital property, and agreeing with the ARQ that they instead were eligible capital property (now Class 14.1) property, Schrager JA referenced s. 18 of the Copyright Act, which provided that “the maker of a sound recording has a copyright in the sound recording, consisting of the sole right to … [inter alia] reproduce it in any material form,” and then stated (at para. 31): There are intangible rights … as described in section 18 … which were purchased in association with the physical tapes. ... The value is found in what is recorded on the plastic or cellulose and what Respondent can do with it – i.e. make and sell good quality copies …. ...

This does not alter the fact that there was only one joint venture agreement entered into and signed by all the … joint venturers. … There was no intention on the part of the legislator to provide for the existence of more than one joint venture, nor to calculate inputs according to the participation of each of the joint venturers. ...

He went on to indicate (at para. 49) that in any event, the daughter could be considered to be “subject to tax” (or “liable for tax” to use his preferred translation, and also essentially the phrase considered in Crown Forest): … The income tax legislation … applies to all Canadian residents … because they may, in one year or another, earn business income in Quebec…. ...

Upon their completion, the taxpayer invoiced Téléglobe for $2.7 million (which he included in computing his income – but presumably with deductions for the cost of the work performed) but issued Téléglobe a credit note for the $2 million amount of the improvement allowance. ... As in … Développement Iberville … the appellant did not establish that the work was related to the specific needs of Teleglobe and, therefore, was of no use to other tenants, and that it did not add any value to the building. Finally, the appellant argues that "[i]t is not in doubt that [the purpose of the payment] was to induce Teleglobe to sign the lease and accept the obligations involved" …. ...