Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

In confirming the decision below that the Minister was bound by the settlement agreement respecting the March 7, 2007 TY, Woods JA stated (at paras 31, 32, 33, and 35): [T]he principles from Galway do not provide the relief that the Crown seeks …. ... Third, the Crown does not suggest that the defect within the settlement agreement is self-evident to the Court as it was in Galway. … The general rule is that parties should be bound by the agreements that they make. ...

Deyab for failing to call his accountant or bookkeeper, or presenting a properly completed shareholders’ loan account reconciliation” (para. 48) – hence, there had been a misrepresentation. Before so finding, he quoted (at para. 46) the statements in Sopinka, Lederman & Bryant: The Law of Evidence in Canada that: §6.471 In civil cases, an unfavourable inference can be drawn when, in the absence of an explanation, a party litigant does not testify, or fails to provide affidavit evidence on an application, or fails to call a witness who would have knowledge of the facts and would be assumed to be willing to assist that party. ...

Holt ([2013] UKSC 26) that equity can relieve a tax mistake …. Nor does Pitt v. ... No discretion is afforded the Minister or the Minister’s agents: “They are required to follow [the Act] absolutely, just as taxpayers are also required to obey it as it stands” (Harris …. ...

Monaghan JA found that the Tax Court had made no reversible error and rejected, among other Carvest submissions, that “because the Tax Court characterized the property to be valued as condominium units, rather than leased apartments, it considered itself bound to use the direct comparison method and the individual condominium resale market,” noting that “the Tax Court understood the units were rented but also qualified as “residential condominium units” for purposes of the Excise Tax Act” (para. 26) and stated further (at para. 32) that she was “ satisfied that the Tax Court chose the direct comparison valuation method because it decided it was the appropriate method in this case for the reasons it explained….” She further stated (at para. 35): The appellant … suggests that the proper approach is to first determine the value of the property and then decide which part of section 191 applies—subsection 191(1) or 191(3)…. ...

The appellant treated their $50,000 annual fee as being eligible for the small supplier exemption on the basis that the appellant’s wife was entitled to ½ in light of her responsibility for providing interior-decorating services. ... Gupta, his wife and himself is admissible because of the patent ambiguity in the contract” – and concluded (at para. 57) that “the Agreement does not accurately reflect their true intent.” ...

Inland Revenue Commissioner, [1991] 4 All E.R. 443 (PC)-- summary under Section 231.2 Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 231.2 In refusing to follow the decision in James Richardson & Sons Ltd. in a similar fact situation, Lord Templeman noted that in that case "the court held that the express power in s. 221, a power which had not been exercised, limited the general power conferred by s. 231" (p. 448). ...

Canada, 2000 DTC 6250 (FCA)-- summary under Personality Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Personality Rothstein J.A. applied (at p. 6256) the determination in Pioneer Laundry & Dry Cleaners Ltd. v. ...

Canada, 2000 DTC 6250 (FCA)-- summary under Separate Existence Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Separate Existence corporate veil not pierced Rothstein J.A. applied (at p. 6256) the determination in Pioneer Laundry & Dry Cleaners Ltd. v. ...

Johnson & Johnson, 94 DTC 6125. ...

London & West Riding Investments Ltd. case stated (at p. 5114): "In other words, the elements of a sham require that the parties to a transaction together have deliberately set out to misrepresent the actual state of affairs to a third party.... ...