Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

. … The standard imposed by paragraph 298(4)(a) is not one of perfection. … [T]he mistake made by Mr. ...

The Trustees acknowledge that this commitment … does not constitute a delegation of their fiduciary powers. … If the Trustees or any of them disagree with the directives received from the Rémillard Brothers, they must then resign …. ... Article 1275 of the Civil Code of Quebec (the CCQ) provided: The … beneficiary may be a trustee but he shall act jointly with a trustee who is neither the settlor nor a beneficiary. ... However, he went on to find (at paras. 83, 104), in light of the testimony that the independent trustees, although consulting with the Rémillard Brothers, had in fact been making the trust decisions: Even if clauses 2.1 and 2.2 of the Agreement were contrary to the trust deed and Article 1275 of the CCQ … the Court concludes based on the preponderance of the evidence submitted that the Rémillard brothers did not act as trustees or “de facto trustees.” … [D]espite the Agreement, the Rémillard brothers did not, in fact, usurp the trustees' powers. ...

The King, 2024 TCC 125-- summary under Subsection 165(1.11) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 165- Subsection 165(1.11) issue should be stated "reasonably" The objection of the taxpayer (RBC) referred in detail to the prior acceptance by the Minister off its input tax credit methodology as accepted for purposes of ETA 141.02(20), but did not submit that the Minister was bound by this method for its 2012 fiscal year – an argument that its counsel did not raise until the opening arguments at trial – which the Crown did not object to until the closing arguments at the end of the trial. ...

After stating (at para. 18) that “For the first step to mean something, the outcome of the first step has to affect the application of the test in the second step,” he stated (at para. 26): [I]if the Wiebe Door and Sagaz factors are completely inconsistent with [their shared] common intention, then their relationship will be the relationship indicated by those factors; and … if the Wiebe Door and Sagaz factors are inconsistent with that common intention but the parties nonetheless act and carry on their relationship in a manner that is similar to what one would expect from their intentions, then their relationship will be the relationship that they intended. ... He concluded (at paras. 68-69): … If I simply applied the Wiebe Door and Sagaz factors …, I would conclude that Mr. ... Those factors … indicate that he was an employee. The control and ownership of tools factors are neutral but Mr. ...

After noting that the preamble to s. 118.5(1)(b) (pursuant to which any tuition credit was to be recognized) referenced a deduction “for the purpose of computing the tax payable under this Part by an individual for a taxation year ” and that s. 118.61(1) referred to computing an “individual’s unused tuition … tax credits at the end of a taxation year,” Monaghan J agreed the Crown position based on the Oceanspan finding that “a non-resident with no source of income in Canada, was not a ‘taxpayer’ and therefore did not have a taxation year” (para. 29), and rejected the taxpayer position that s. 250.1(a) had the effect of deeming any non-resident to have a taxation year, stating (at paras. 38-39): [P]aragraph 250.1(a) applies only to those non-residents for whom a taxation year must be identified for a purpose mandated by the Act (including for the purpose identified in paragraph 250.1(b)) but who are not taxpayers and therefore would not otherwise have a taxation year for purposes of the Act. … It does not operate to give every non-resident a taxation year thereby allowing every non‑resident to bring themselves within the scope of the Act. A good example of when section 250.1 operates is subsection 104(13) … [which] may apply to a resident beneficiary of a non-resident trust. Although this was sufficient ground for dismissing the appeal, Monaghan J further noted (at para. 48) that “[s]ubsection 118.5(1) applies for one purpose only: ‘for the purpose of computing the tax payable by an individual for a taxation year.’,” so that (paras. 53, 55): [A] person will not be an individual for purposes of section 118.5 in a particular year unless that individual is a taxpayer in that year because the individual is described in subsection 2(1) or 2(3) and is potentially liable to tax in Canada under Part I. … [U]nless a non-resident individual is described in subsection 2(3), none of Part I applies to the individual. ...

. … [T]he exclusions listed in section 1 of Part III…should be narrowly construed. ... In finding that the sticks came within the exclusion from zero-rating in para. 1(f), Smith J stated (at paras 59, 62, and 63): …[T]he sticks … were manufactured by a company called “Old School Snacks” and the evidence clearly established that they were sold as snacks and eaten as‑is without further preparation. …[T]he … sticks were not sold as crackers or “bread sticks” or even as a bread product. … [B]read products including crackers are in fact oven‑baked and not fried. ...

Canada, 2024 FCA 45-- summary under Section 35 Summary Under Tax Topics- Other Legislation/Constitution- Constitution Act, 1867- Section 35 Senate vacancies do not invalidate bills passed with a quorum The taxpayer appealed a reassessment of its 2011 taxation year – made in reliance on a retroactive amendment made to the relevant ITA provision in 2014 – on the grounds that the amending Act was passed by a Senate that had substantial vacancies, contrary to Part IV of the Constitution Act, 1867 (which has detailed provisions respecting the appointment of specified numbers of senators from each province). In confirming the decision below that this claim should be struck, Biringer JA referred to s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and stated (at paras. 12-13): Crucially, section 35 makes it clear that the Senate may exercise its powers notwithstanding any vacancies, as long as there is a quorum of senators …. Accordingly, it was plain and obvious that the appellant’s Senate vacancy argument had no reasonable prospect of success …. ...

Other than this table, the appellant did not file supporting documents regarding the percentages set out therein, be they time sheets, SR&ED progress reports, correspondence, minutes of meetings, internal notes or emails related to these tasks, nor did it … call any of the employees from these two groups as witnesses to support these percentages …. The Court found no reviewable error in the finding below that the taxpayer had thus failed to “demolish” the ARQ assessments by making out a prima facie case, that the ARQ’s premise — of the taxpayer not having shown that the reported portions of each employee’s salary could reasonably be attributed to the prosecution of SR&ED — was false. ...

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. ...

. … The Court cannot gloss over a legislative provision which requires the Minister to make an assessment permitting the taxpayer to then make an election. … I also note that clause 2106(a)(iv)(A) of the Regulation … requires that the taxpayer indicate “the date of the notice of assessment of the tax that would, but for the election, have been payable under Part III of the Act.” ...