Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

There are four types of inputs for the purposes of section 141.02 — direct inputs, excluded inputs, exclusive inputs and non-attributable inputs — informing the appropriate allocation method that is to be used by a financial institution in calculating its ITCs. ...

After noting (at para. 50) that there was not “a complete severance of contractual ties and obligations” after the termination of active service (for examples, duties of notification), Bocock J stated (at para. 53) that “[g]enerally … non-residents pay tax only on employed income from Canada where the employment is performed in Canada” and that, under s. 4(1)(b): [W]here duties are performed by a taxpayer in both Canada (“one place”) and a different country (“another place”), the taxpayer’s income is calculated from the duties performed in the one place versus another place. ... This is also supported by the preamble in paragraph 115(2)(c.1) applicable to both sub-paragraphs where it stated "“irrespective of … the form or legal effect of the contract …”". ...

Wong J noted (at para. 15) the taxpayer’s submission that, in the context of “the distinction between the French version of subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i) which reads ‘une présentation erronée des faits’ while the English version reads ‘any misrepresentation’ … the income-versus-capital issue is one of mixed law and fact and as a result, cannot constitute a misrepresentation for the purposes of subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i).” ... In dismissing the motion, she stated (at paras. 24-25, 28): I cannot agree with the Appellant’s proposition … that a question of income versus capital necessarily amounts to a difference in opinion… [T]he factual circumstances of the appeal will determine whether the issue of income versus capital is purely a difference of opinion or not. … The question of whether a misrepresentation under subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i) contemplates fact only or mixed-law-and-fact, should properly remain with the trier of fact to determine in conjunction with the related substantive issues. …. In the present case, documents have not yet been exchanged nor have discoveries been conducted. … While the mechanics of the transactions may not be in dispute, the factual circumstances have yet to be determined for the purposes of confirming or rebutting the Minister’s assumptions. ...

. … The order the Minister seeks does not meet the principle of proportionality. … The time and cost involved in allowing the Minister to interview more than 25 Cameco personnel scattered across the world is not proportional to the information being sought since the Tax Court of Canada will determine the issues that are the focus of the requested interviews. ...

In dismissing the appeal, the Court stated (at paras 13, 20, TaxInterpretations translation): … The trial judge and the respondent are correct in stating that "[a] person who avoids the payment of a tax imposed under the Act, necessarily avoids compliance with the Act." The provision creates a single offence- tax evasion- the meaning and scope of which would be even clearer by rephrasing the wording as follows: "has voluntarily, in any way, evaded or attempted to evade the payment of a tax imposed under that Act, or otherwise evaded or attempted to evade compliance with this Act ". The appellant criticizes the judge for creating a problem of duplication that does not exist. … [T]he tax evaded underlying the counts in issue was not due by the appellant. ...

The Crown submitted that “where a transfer is effected through a number of preordained transactions that together result in the transferor’s patrimony being depleted … [the word] ‘time’ [in s. 160] can encapsulate the whole of the transactions effecting the transfer” (para. 28). In rejecting this submission, Noël CJ stated (at para. 58): [T]he adequacy of the consideration given must be measured against the value of the property transferred by way of a “snapshot” taken at the point in time when the transfer takes place. … [I]t is not disputed that Newco gave Oldco adequate consideration at that time …. ... In further reversing the finding below, that the note (the “Oldco Note”) issued by Oldco to redeem its shares only had nominal value so as to engage the application of s. 160, he stated (at paras. 62-63): [I]t was not open to the Tax Court judge to hold that the Newco note had “considerable” value and that the Oldco note had a “nominal” value since both were backed by the same assets (Reasons at para. 57). … I also agree …that the Oldco note represented a bona fide debt in the face amount of $30 million. … The law is clear that the payment of a bona fide debt cannot trigger the application of subsection 160(1) which is precisely what took place when the notes were discharged …. ...

[I]t is not just that I find the purpose, agreement and distribution was to more easily and inexpensively distribute the money to those with rightful claims to it, in this case CRA would be in absolutely no different position with respect to the Corporation’s unpaid taxes then had the Corporation not distributed the money to the Appellant first, but had itself directly made the identical distributions to the patients of their ‘in trust’ amounts and to the other legitimate suppliers, debts and creditors of the Corporation …. I do not accept that it was the intention of Parliament or … Livingston to have section 160 apply in circumstances where CRA not only wasn’t but could never be … in any different position whatsoever as a result of the transfer. ...

Lamarre ACJ noted (at para. 81, see also 98) the principle that "in order to characterize the proceeds from a derivative transaction, one needs to identify the underlying item that created the risk … to which the derivative relates (which item does not necessarily need to be a transaction)" and that if, as was the case here, "it is found that the derivative was used to hedge a capital investment, any gain derived from the derivative will be on capital account. ... The Crown position "which denies capital treatment … if there is no sale or proposed sale of the underlying item being hedged … has no legal basis" (para. 97), and "the settlement of derivative contracts in advance of their maturity date does not preclude those transactions from constituting a hedge (Echo Bay …)" (para. 88). ...

In finding that the brokers’ services also would have been taxable on this basis, Pizzitelli J stated (at para 21): [I]f I had been required to [consider whether their services fall within the ambit of paragraph (r.4) of the definition of financial services in subsection 123(1)], I would have found that at best, the services … were merely preparatory to the provision or potential provision of a qualifying financial service thereunder. … [T]heir services comprised “market research” and “the collection, collation and provision of information” contemplated by paragraph (r.4.). ...

Factors mentioned by Owen J included: Settlement offers made by Cameco (one less than 30 days before trial, and one after trial) did not have any real bearing given their “ de minimis nature” (i.e., although Cameo offered “$32 million of additional taxable earnings in 2006 … no additional tax in any of the three years under appeal” was offered (paras. 20-21). ...