Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

Before finding that CFI had satisfied the documentary requirements for claiming ITCs for the HST on the rent prepayments, and in rejecting the Crown position that various CFI spreadsheets did not satisfy its alleged requirement that “a supporting document … must originate from or be signed by the [supplier]” (para. 30), Hogan J stated (at paras. 38, 40 and 48): [T]he broad term “form” was used in subsection 169(4) of the Act and section 2 of the Regulations because Parliament was mindful of the benefits of paperless record keeping. … [I]nformation stored on a registrant’s computer server qualifies as supporting documentation. … [T]he Regulations do not set out a general requirement for the supporting documentation to be issued or signed by the supplier. ...

After noting (at para. 20) the Vavilov test that the administrative decision under review must “exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency” and (at para. 39) the Saipem test of “a rational connection … between the information sought and the administration and enforcement of the ITA,” Fothergill J stated (at para 43, 45-47): No explanation has been provided for the absence of any time limits on the information sought in the Requirement, although the previous requests were all restricted to the taxation years under audit. No explanation has been provided for the absence of any limit on the number of agreements to be produced, the identities of the contracting parties, or the geographic regions to which they apply. … The CRA’s first request for information … was limited to agreements in force during the audit period. ... Nine criteria were provided, including location in an OECD member state, and the performance of tasks related to research, development and distribution. … The CRA has offered no explanation for the dramatic increase in the scope of the information sought in the Requirement. ...

Pagone J stated (at paras. 6, 8, 11, 12 and 33): … The inquiry into derivation is not into whether an entitlement to receive has arisen or whether an amount has been received, although both entitlement and receipt may be relevant in determining whether there has been derivation. ... That the interest income had been derived upon accrual, … is not denied by the fact that … “SRC made only 2 loan advances in 10 years, and occasionally provided other financial accommodation in other forms”. ... There was no suggestion on the evidence that payment of the accrued interest income from its parent was uncertain. … [T]he lending of money and the provision of financial accommodation for reward to its parent company was part of its business or income earning activities. ...

In the result, he extracted $2M from the corporate group, of which approximately half corresponded to the deemed dividend received by him, and the other half, corresponding to the “soft” ACB of the shares was received free of tax – even though the PUC and “hard” ACB of the shares was nominal. ... In confirming the decision below to uphold this assessment, Noël CJ stated (at paras. 65, 77, 79 TaxInterpretations translation): The logic underlying this adjustment [in s. 84.1] rests on the fact, discussed above, that the paid-up capital and the ACB of the shares concerned reflect only the amounts which have been subjected to tax. … The object and spirit of this provision, or its rationale, is to prevent amounts which have not been subjected to tax to serve in extracting surplus of a corporation free of tax. ... To this end, subparagraph 84.1(2)(a.1)(ii) requires going beyond the ACB of the shares concerned – or of the shares for which they are substituted – and enquiring as to the source of the funds which constituted them in order to ascertain if they were subjected to tax. … This rationale was circumvented by the plan implemented by the appellant. ...

Aubé JCQ found (at paras 69.1, 69.5, 69.6, 70, 71, and 72, Tax Interpretations translation): … [T]he whole family was involved in the project. … The profit realized on the sale was used to reimburse the lines of credit. ...

Leblanc JA agreed, stating (at para. 66, TaxInterpretations translation): [I]t would be incongruous, to say the least, if provisions purporting to assist a taxpayer caused more harm to a well-meaning taxpayer than to a less well-meaning one …. This cannot be the result that Parliament intended …. Accordingly, he found (at para. 69) that the "amount" referred to in ss. 280 and 280.1 on which the interest or late-filing penalty was to be calculated “can only represent, in circumstances such as these, the amount of tax actually owed by the taxpayer” (i.e., the tax as reduced by the taxpayer’s rebate entitlement). ...

In this regard, she noted: (at para. 293) that respecting the “seizure in this case [of] banking information that is turned over to the CRA by Canadian financial institutions … the mechanism of the seizure is minimally intrusive, suggesting that there is an objectively lower expectation of privacy …”, (at para. 306): The fact that the Plaintiffs and other U.S. persons have the pre-existing obligation to report their banking information to the IRS under American tax laws (as well as the obligation to file the FBAR reports that are required under the U.S. ... (at para. 316) that “one of the major purposes underlying the … enactment of the Impugned Provisions was to avoid the potentially catastrophic impact that compliance with FATCA would have for Canadian financial institutions, their customers and the Canadian economy as a whole [re the imposition of 30% withholding tax]” in seeking to avoid this result “it is doubtful that Canada could have negotiated a better deal with the United States” (para. 325) under the common reporting standard as codified in ITA Part XIX, “the sharing of taxpayer information between countries has received international acceptance,” para. 337), (at para. 338) that “The reasonableness of seizures that are carried out in accordance with the Impugned Provisions is further confirmed by the fact that the banking information in issue is shared with the IRS in confidence, in accordance with the provisions of the Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty. ” She then stated (at para. 349): I also agree with the Defendants that the benefit that would accrue to those affected by the Impugned Provisions by their ability to ignore their obligations under American tax laws is outweighed by the need to protect Canada as a whole from the economic consequences of FATCA. ...

At issue was whether the full assessed amount qualified as an “amount payable, within the meaning of subsection 223(1) of the Income Tax Act … by an individual,” in which case s. 172.1 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, which provided more onerous conditions for the discharge of an individual with substantial amounts of such “personal income tax debts,” would have been applicable. ... The assessed amount can change from time to time by virtue of judicial decisions or new assessments: Terra Nova Properties … [1967] 2 Ex. ...

Canada, 2020 FCA 97-- summary under Onus Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Onus Tax Court could determine a taxable benefit percentage (different from that assumed by the Minister) based on all the evidence The founder and controlling shareholder of Cirque du Soleil, had been found by the Tax Court to have received a taxable benefit under s. 15(1) (or alternatively, under s. 246(1)) equalling approximately 90% of the $41.8 million cost of sending him on a trip to the international space station (ISS) in September and October 2009, given that the cost was borne by his family holding company and then largely passed through to the top operating company (“Créations Méandres “) in the Cirque du Soleil group, but with there being a matching contribution of capital by the holding company to Créations Méandres so that independent shareholders would not bear any of the cost of the trip. ... There, the appellant argued that he had succeeded in demolishing the assumptions of fact contained in the Minister’s Reply and asserted that his appeal therefore had to be allowed. … [T]his Court [instead] adopted the same approach to valuation taken by the Tax Court in the instant case and calculated the value of the shareholder benefit at the end of the case based upon all the evidence tendered. ...

Whether an amount is "required to be included" – words used, for example in subsection 104(12), or subsection 144(7) – is a question of law. ...