Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

. … What occurred was a revocation, it would appear on an unsolicited and unobserved basis, of the company’s territorial licence to operate in Macao. ... …In effect, the existing business and inventory became stranded and almost valueless because of hugely impactful legislative change. … Further, there was no authority for Mr. Groscki to act as liquidator. … Some instrument or action must award or grant some authority or at least “colour of right” to “administer assets” in the course of a dissolution, winding up and/or liquidation. … He went on to find (at para. 70) that, even if the appellant had been a legal representative, he was not in “possession and control” of EMI Macao’s property, stating that such control was instead in the hands of a related distributor corporation. ...

For instance, respecting s. 132(4), he stated (at para. 42): [T]he reference to two separate persons in subsection 132(4) can be explained by the fact that two permanent establishments are involved – one in Canada and one outside Canada – neither of which are legal persons on their own account, with the result that each had to be deemed to be a person that is separate from the other in order for cross-border supplies between them to be recognized. ...

. … The wording of the provision is unambiguous …. ...

. … Ikea did not overrule Firestone or Neonex. Rather, it emphasized the purpose test. … The Supreme Court has endorsed the principle that the underlying purpose of an expense must be considered in the context of the taxpayer’s business. …[T]he expenses … [Mr. Robinson] incurred, put in the most favourable light, are expenditures relating to the acquisition or creation of a business, not the running of a business. ...

It has no application where, as here, each of the transactions was entered into in the pursuit of a bona fide non-tax purpose …. Beyond this, the concept of “series of transactions” is foreign to subsection 160(1). … [S]ubsection 160(1) contains no such specific language. Instead, Parliament resorted to the all-encompassing words set out in its introductory words …. ...

Profit- Real Estate conversion of bush lot into fully serviced housing lots was a business – cf. if merely subdivided The taxpayer (Moluch) acquired 55 acres of bushland in 1937, part of which he cleared and farmed. ... He took the raw land which he owned and by the expenditure of money and effort he ended up possessing a number of fully serviced residential lots for sale. … The facts in the McGuire case [56 DTC 1042] are distinguishable … in that there the effect of filing a plan of subdivision was merely to divide the land into a number of smaller parcels which were sold piecemeal without effecting any physical change in the land, whereas in the present appeal, the character of the raw land was changed to that of serviced lots by the expenditure of considerable effort and money, in addition to the land being divided into a number of smaller parcels. ...

. … Section 174 does not require the Tax Court to make any type of order. ... The Tax Court was entitled to take into account issues of efficiency and procedural fairness. … [T]his Court must defer to such a factually suffused, discretionary finding. … ...

The Queen, 2022 TCC 13-- summary under Subsection 84(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 84- Subsection 84(2) MacDonald established that s. 84(2) applied to a speedo pipeline – but correctness of MacDonald doubted The taxpayer, an estate which received shares of a portfolio company (“Holdco”) whose adjusted cost base had been stepped-up under s. 70(5), engaged in some preliminary transactions to access the capital dividend account and refundable dividend tax on hand account of Holdco and then, engaged in post-mortem pipeline transactions under which: On January 17, 2013, the estate transferred its Holdco shares to a newly-incorporated corporation (“9272”) for a note equaling the ACB and fair market value of such shares; On January 18, 2013, Holdco was wound up into 9272. 9272 repaid the note on February 8, 2013. After noting (at para. 20, TaxInterpretations translation) the Crown submission that “the transactions of the estate were almost identical to the transactions in the MacDonald decision,” Hogan J found (at para. 23) that under the “rule of stare decisis … whether or not I agree with the FCA's reasoning in MacDonald … I am bound by the FCA's findings.” ...

. … [I]n Daishowa-Marubeni …Nadon J.A. [stated]: … if the parties to an agreement attribute a value to a future liability, then the Minister is entitled to add this amount to the vendor's proceeds of disposition- whether or not the liability assumed by the purchaser is contingent or absolute. ...

In dismissing the taxpayer’s appeal, Favreau J stated (at paras 26, 28): The Convention between Canada and Australia … does not prohibit the taxation of the pension benefits by Canada. … [T]he amounts received by the Appellant from the QSuper were superannuation or pension benefits and that they had to be included in his income in accordance with subparagraph 56(1)(a)(i) of the Act regardless that he was unable to deduct the contributions to the QSuper when he made them. ...