Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

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.... ...

The Queen, 2009 DTC 179, 2008 TCC 684-- summary under Paragraph 18(1)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 18- Subsection 18(1)- Paragraph 18(1)(a) A fine which the taxpayer paid under the Occupational Health & Safety Act (Ontario) for the offence of failing "to provide information, instruction and supervision to a worker" following a death of a worker was found not to come within the "egregious or repulsive" conduct obiter dictum of the Supreme Court of Canada. ...

The Queen, 2010 DTC 1399 [at at 4585], 2010 TCC 576, aff'd 2012 DTC 5055 [at 6842], 2011 FCA 321, aff'd 2013 DTC 5144 [at 6275], 2013 SCC 48-- summary under Redundancy/reading in words Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Redundancy/reading in words The taxpayer unsuccessfully argued (ca. para. 65) that s. 87(2) was intended to constitute a complete code as to the consequences of an amalgamation, so that it would be rendered redundant if an amalgamation could be governed by general Black & Decker ([1975] 1 S.C.R. 411) principles. ...

Salomon & Co., [1897] A.C. 22 (HL)): [A]n Ontario corporation is a legal entity that has a legal personality separate and apart from its directors, officers and shareholders. ...

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, 2020 FCA 195-- summary under French and English Version Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- French and English Version "peut" (may) in French version accorded with a sense of the English version's "shall" Noël CJ effectively found that the word “peut” (may) in the French version of s. 118.1(11) meant the same thing as the word “shall” in the English version, stating in this regard (at para. 53): [T]he use of the word “peut” in the French version illustrates how “an official who is permitted to do a thing may, in addition, be obliged to do it” (Ruth Sullivan, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes …). ...

Canada, 2023 FCA 146-- summary under Stare Decisis Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Stare Decisis stare decisis applies horizontally In connection with following the court’s earlier decision in Cheema, LeBlanc JA stated (at paras. 10-11): [T]he principle of horizontal stare decisis... dictates that decisions of a panel of an appellate court bind future panels of that court …. ...

After noting (at para. 228-229) that Triad Gestco had found that “the capital gain system … [is] aimed at taxing increases in ‘economic power’” rather than only “an arithmetic difference”, Monaghan JA stated (at para. 232) that “[t]he appellants had neither an economic gain nor an economic loss; there was absolutely no change in their economic power as a result of their participation in the FMO reorganization” and (at para. 236) “[a]s in Triad Gestco … avoidance transactions frustrated the object, spirit and purpose of the capital gain and capital loss provisions in the Income Tax Act.” ...

Miller, J found that the Tax Court did not have the jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a purported Alberta trust which had been assessed by CRA for Ontario income tax (on the basis of being resident in Ontario) as well as for Ontario gross negligence penalties, stating (at para. 14): [I]t is also clear that the Tax Court of Canada does not have jurisdiction to decide if a provincial penalty is properly imposed: Andrew Paving & Engineering Ltd v Minister of National Revenue, [1984] C.T.C. 2164 (TCC) at paragraph 8 and Raboud v Canada, 2009 TCC 99 at paragraph 12. ...

The assessed amount can change from time to time by virtue of judicial decisions or new assessments: Terra Nova Properties … [1967] 2 Ex. ...

In rejecting the taxpayer’s arguments inter alia that such property was capital property, which precluded the treatment of the receipts as being on income account (even under s. 12(l)(g)), Taylor TCJ held that as the amount of the royalty was “dependent upon the use of or production from ‘ the business as a going concern’ (the property),” and that the property sold had a direct relationship with the source of payment, the payments fell squarely within s. 12(l)(g). ...