Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

Akbari … never intended to occupy the property as his primary residence.... … It is the relationship of the person acquiring the complex to the builder—one of purchase and sale—that is relevant, not the relationship between co-purchasers. ... Akbari was acquiring the complex only as a trustee is of no consequence. … [S]ection 254 [does not] provide any exception for trustees.... ...

., 2018 FCA 166-- summary under Subsection 160(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 160- Subsection 160(1) stock dividend followed by redemption of the stock dividend shares effected in combination a transfer of property for no consideration Income account treatment of the profits realized by a condo-project limited partnership was avoided through the corporate partners (the Partnercos) of the partnership paying safe income dividends (out of the realized but unallocated condo profits) to their respective Holdco shareholders through the payment of stock dividends of preferred shares followed by a redemption of those preferred shares – in turn, followed by a sale by the Holdcos of the Partnercos to a public company with substantial resource pools (Nuinsco). ... After first finding that the allocation of the income to Nuinsco rather than to the Partnercos represented an abusive avoidance for purposes of s. 245(4) of ss. 96(1)(f) and 103(1), Woods JA went on to find that s. 160 would have applied to the transfer of property of the Partnercos to the Holdcos effected through the preferred share stock dividends and redemptions but for the fact that the associated tax liability did not arise until the income was allocated to an arm's length person (Nuinsco), stating (at paras. 112, 115): The stock dividends and the redemption together resulted in a transfer of cash “indirectly … by any means whatever” from Partnerco to Holdco without consideration. … Although the Algoa Trust decision deals with a cash dividend, the combination in this case of stock dividends followed by a redemption has the same effect and similarly results in a transfer of property without consideration. ...

In rejecting the taxpayers’ request that the Tax Court cancel the accumulated interest on their assessments, MacPhee J stated (at para. 24): The case law is clear: if a taxpayer wants a review of the Minister’s decision concerning interest relief he must file an application for judicial review at the Federal Court under section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act …. ...

Canada, 2013 FCA 65, the question was whether the record “establishes that the virtually uncontested acts of non-compliance on the part of the Charity can be regarded as ‘serious’ or ‘aggravated’, ” Ryer JA agreed with the first ground as a sufficient basis for revocation, stating (at paras. 14 and 15): [T]he Charity failed to provide the Minister with books and records that would allow the Minister to determine if the appropriate amount of income tax relief was being provided by the Charity to its donors at the expense of the fisc. ...

Hence, the majority concluded that both errors were reviewable—errors of law are reviewable under the correctness standard via the statutory appeal mechanism in subsection 68(1) of the Customs Act, while errors of fact are reviewable under the reasonableness standard through an application for judicial review …. ...

The judge below concluded that all SKAT's claims were inadmissible as a consequence of the revenue rule (“Dicey Rule 3”), which was expressed as follows by Sir Julian Flaux, Chancellor as follows (at para. 1): English courts have no jurisdiction to entertain an action … for the enforcement, either directly or indirectly, of a penal, revenue or other public law of a foreign State. ... It is a claim to recover monies which had been abstracted from SKAT’s general funds by fraud. … [T]he fraud here was not fraud by the taxpayer in evading tax. There was no tax due and those who committed the fraud were never taxpayers. … [W]hat SKAT is saying entitles it to repayment is not that the … Applicants or the alleged fraud defendants owe it tax or have cheated it out of tax, but that it was induced by fraudulent misrepresentation to pay away monies to these persons to which they were not entitled on any basis. ...

The statutory language (quoting for convenience from s. 120.4(5)) relevantly required that an “amount can reasonably be considered to be attributable to a taxable capital gain … of a trust from a disposition of shares … that are transferred, either directly or indirectly, in any manner whatever, to a person with whom the specified individual does not deal at arm's length….” ... [S]ection 766.7.2 can only be interpreted and have meaning when there are two legal transactions related to the shares, namely, first, the disposition of the shares that will subsequently be transferred to generate an amount that could reasonably be considered to be attributable to a taxable capital gain …. ...

However … assumptions pleaded must be the assumptions actually made …. ... He further stated (at para. 60): I endorse the principle … in Preston that tax assumptions containing statements of mixed fact and law will not be invalidated simply on that basis if the factual underpinnings are clearly stated, there is no dispute about the legal principles and no prejudice results. ...

After finding that AC made a single supply under the Agreement, and in finding that such single taxable supply was of promotional services rather than (as submitted by CIBC) a supply of “gift certificates” exempted under s. 181.2, Visser J stated (at paras. 32-33): [T]he true nature or raison d'être of the Aeroplan Mile Program, the … Agreement and the resulting Aeroplan Supplies is to market and promote applications for and increased use of participating CIBC credits cards (and other participating CIBC financial products such as mortgages). The wording of both the … Agreement and Aeroplan’s invoices to CIBC makes this clear. … In effect, section 9 of the 2003 Credit Card Agreement explicitly stipulates that the marketing and promotional services (the referral activities) are the predominant element of the Aeroplan Supplies and further provides that all other supplies are incidental thereto.. … …Aeroplan Payments were computed with reference to the number of Aeroplan Miles which were issued in a particular billing period as a convenient method for calculating the value of the marketing and promotional services provided by Aeroplan to CIBC. ...

In reversing the finding below that Emergis could not deduct such tax because such tax could (in accordance with the exception at the end of s. 20(12)) “reasonably be regarded as having been paid by a corporation [Emergis] in respect of income from a share … of a foreign affiliate [the LLC],” Webb JA and Goyette JA indicated: “[I]t would not be reasonable to regard the US Government as imposing a tax in respect of the income from the shares of LLC, as the US Government did not recognize the separate existence of LLC” (para. 28). ... It appeared that s. 20(12) was enacted “(a) because foreign taxes, not being incurred to earn income, are not deductible (paragraph 18(1)(a) …); and (b) to address the limitations in subsection 126(1) …, one of them being the unavailability of a credit when the income on which the tax imposed by the foreign government has no foreign source” – so that here, as Emergis did not have a source of income in the US “[a]llowing it to benefit from the subsection 20(12) deduction would therefore be in line with the purpose of this provision.” ...