Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

The taxpayer’s principal, as a lay person, could not be expected to recognize the issue of triggering a change of use – and to expect him “to initiate a discussion with [the company’s accountant] concerning the possible application of a highly technical provision of the Act would be to hold him to an unrealistically high standard of care” (para. 46). Finally (at para. 49): Aridi … found that it was not sufficient to show negligence on the part of the taxpayer’s professional advisor in making the misrepresentation, and that the taxpayer must also be shown to have acted in a negligent or careless manner. ...

In finding that zero-rating was not available under s. 12(a), Lyons J stated (at paras 71, 78): …[P]aragraph 12(a) … denotes an intention that a third party carrier would need to be engaged where the supplier “ships” the property to a destination outside Canada. This construction aligns with Parliament’s intent that exported goods are available for use (by the recipient or its designate) only outside Canada. … As no third party carrier was engaged under a contract for carriage, I find that the appellant did not ship the Jewellery within the meaning of paragraph 12(a). ...

. … When making the subsection 297(2.1) assessment for the overpayment of the rebate, the Minister must consider subsection 296(2.1) since she is assessing an amount that became payable by the person under Part IX of the Act. … CRA in assessing must take into account any unclaimed new rental housing rebate that was available, as was the case here. ...

The availability to Praesto of an input tax credit for the VAT included in the Sintons invoices turned on a VAT provision providing such a credit for “VAT on the supply to him [the taxable person] of any goods or services being … goods or services used or to be used for the purpose of any business carried on or to be carried on by him.” ... CSP was seeking to put Praesto out of business as its competitor. … The FTT [below] was satisfied and found that the litigation was effectively being brought against Mr Ranson and Praesto, even though Praesto had not been joined to the proceedings. ...

. … [A]n ambiguity does arise from a broader examination of the ETA as to how subsections 132(3) and 150(1) interact. The task when confronted with seemingly conflicting provisions is to determine whether they can be made to work coherently in a manner which gives effect to the statutory scheme …. ...

., if the decision was unreasonable) – although, of course, the substantive question of whether the requested adjustment was correct could not be reviewed by her. ... In any event, CRA had no legal obligation to issue a reassessment notice following the taxpayer request – that was a decision that was within its discretion (s. 152(4) used the word “may”). ...

In rejecting the CRA position in this regard, Webb JA stated (at para. 28): The Crown’s interpretation … [is] that all ingredients that are included in the packaged product must be agricultural or plant products grown in Canada, except those that are permitted to be added by the CRA, on the basis that they are “incidental”. This would result in a delegation of authority to the CRA to decide what wine will qualify for the exemption. … [I]t would not have been the intent of Parliament to implicitly delegate this authority to the CRA. ...

In rejecting this argument, D’Auray J stated (at para. 129): … [A]ssuming the buyers purchases were in violation of Apple policy[,] at most this made the purchase contracts voidable and not void. ... Although many of the receipts issued by the Apple stores had missing, fictitious or unreadable names for the buyers (as agents of Lohas), D’Auray J found that such deficiencies were cured in the case of purchases for which a “memo prepared by Lohas showed the name of each buyer, the iPhones purchases, the tax and the commissions paid” (para. 147) – so that ITCs were denied only for a relatively small number of purchases where this was not done. ...

In reversing the finding below that the taxpayer was carrying on a business and was entitled to deduct the claimed losses, the Court stated (at paras. 12, 16, TaxInterpretations translation): [T]he judge did not analyze the activities of the respondent in relation to the objective factors laid out … in Stewart, namely, (1) the profit and loss experience in past years; (2) the taxpayer’s training; (3) the taxpayer’s intended course of action; and (4) the capability of the venture to show a profit. … [I]t is difficult to conclude that the predominant intention of the respondent was to derive profit from the equestrian activities of his daughters and that he showed serious businesslike conduct. ...

Bocock J also found that the taxpayer was not entitled to relief against double taxation under the Canada-UK Income Tax Convention, stating (at para 14): … Because the amount has not yet been subject to tax in the UK (because it has been deducted from income before calculating income tax) there is no requirement under the Convention or section 126 of the Act to provide relief in Canada. ... Zong ultimately receives his pension in the UK, it may be subject to UK income tax and he may be eligible for relief in Canada through the FTC at such time, but not now. … ...