Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

Canada, 2025 FCA 129-- summary under Ordinary Meaning Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Ordinary Meaning meaning of “distribution” informed by provincial securities law Before referencing the meaning of “distribution” under provincial securities laws, Monaghan JA stated (at paras. 189, 190): The Supreme Court tells us it is both appropriate and consistent with the modern principle of statutory interpretation to reference the broader commercial law to give meaning to words and expressions that have well-defined meanings outside of the Income Tax Act: Will-Kare Paving & Contracting Ltd. v. ...

In dismissing an application to the Court to declare that the trust was valid, Nixon J adverted to the principle in Addison & Leyen Ltd v Canada, 2007 SCC 33 (CanLII), [2007] 2 S.C.R. 793, at para. 11 that "Judicial review should not be used to develop a new form of incidental litigation designed to circumvent the system of tax appeals established by Parliament and the jurisdiction of the Tax Court," and stated (at para. 66): The only dispute with respect to the validity of the Trust is with the CRA in relation to the payment of tax. ...

(as she then was) in S & K Processors Ltd. v. Campbell Avenue Herring Producers Ltd. (1983), 35 C.P.C. 146 (S.C.) in saying that "waiver of privilege as to part of a communication, will be held to be waiver as to the entire communication". ...

Trollope & Colls, Ltd. et al. v. Atomic Power Constructions Ltd., [1962] 3 All E.R. 1035, in which it was held that parties to a contract could give their contract retrospective effect. ...

…[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 Queen, 2016 TCC 52 (Informal Procedure)-- summary under Benefits-Conferring Legislation Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Benefits-Conferring Legislation interpretation to favour conferral of intended benefits In connection with finding that he addition of an accommodation co-purchaser (for financing purposes) of a new condo did not have the effect of denying the new housing HST rebate, Hershfield J stated (at paras. 50-51): In Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. ...

After noting (at para. 65) that “ Crown Forest found that accepted model conventions and official commentaries thereon may be referred to without the need to find an ambiguity in the text of the tax treaty” and (at para. 67) that “although Brazil is not an OECD member, the similarities between the language used in Article XXII(2) of the Treaty and that found in paragraph 23B of the 1977 OECD Model is evidence that the 1977 OECD Model was considered in drafting the Treaty,” Paris J stated (at para. 72): At paragraph 63 of the Commentaries [on the 1977 OECD Model], the limitation on the deduction [in Art. 23B] is stated to be “normally computed as the tax on net income, i.e. on the income from [the State of source] less allowable deductions.” ...

In this regard, the Court stated (at para. 139): In the current edition of Bowstead, namely Watts P and Reynolds FMB, Bowstead & Reynolds on Agency (20th ed, 2014), the relevant ‘rules’ are set out in Arts 94 and 95. ...

Canada, 2022 FCA 57-- summary under Paragraph 175(1)(b) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 175- Subsection 175(1)- Paragraph 175(1)(b) health care services rendered to employees were not in relation to the employer’s activities Westcoast reimbursed (through Manulife as its agent) employees who had incurred various health care services – including some which were GST/HST-taxable, namely, acupuncture, massage therapy, naturopathy and homeopathy services. ...

In connection with finding that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction under s. 171 to reverse a Ministerial opinion that a requested s. 247(10) downward adjustment is inappropriate given that the jurisdiction accorded to the Tax Court under ITA s. 171(1) is only to vacate or vary an assessment or refer it back to the Minister, whereas a s. 247(10) opinion is not an assessment (although it will affect an assessment), he noted (at para. 74): Anchor Pointe … found that what is under appeal to the Tax Court is the product of the process of determining a taxpayer’s liability under the ITA and not the process itself. ...