Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

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. … ...

. … Th[eir] relationship did not end on …[the father’s] death. The Appellants continue to be the children of …[the father].. ... However, the relationship of father and child is not a statutory relationship; it is a factual relationship. … [T]he Appellants are the children of …[the father]. ...

The Queen, 2020 TCC 34-- summary under Subsection 261(3) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 261- Subsection 261(3) In connection with a purchase of a dental practice (by the taxpayer, or by a partnership between him and the vendor – those facts are not clear), on February 29, 2012, the taxpayer paid the vendor $85,013.50 in HST in addition to the purchase price and, following a change in accountants, filed GST/HST general rebate application dated February 12, 2016 seeking a rebate of tax paid in error in the amount previously paid. ... Wong J dismissed the appeal, stating (at paras 17, 24): I am unable to see a way in which the common-law discoverability rule can be appropriately applied to the present situation. … By the time the Minister received the Appellant’s rebate application on February 5, 2016, the time limit had already passed and cannot be extended: see Panar…. ...

In dismissing the taxpayer’s application for judicial review of the decision to impose the penalties, Shirzad J stated (at paras 37 and 38): … If taxpayers could re-characterize taxable income or benefits as non-taxable benefits in their applications to the VDP and thereby escape penalties from future audits for having “disclosed” the amounts in this application, it would be contrary to the purpose of the VDP and its public policy rationale, which is meant to promote compliance with Canada’s tax laws …. ...

. … In the absence of a conclusion that the promissory notes subscribed for the purchase of the … franchises constitute shams, the resulting legal effects must be respected. ...

This is … a legal error. As stated [in Shell]: “This Court has consistently held that courts must therefore be cautious before finding within the clear provisions of the [ITA] an unexpressed legislative intention...” …. ...

Laskin JA found that the Rules merely required the Minister to produce the documents which were in the hands of the decision-maker when the decision was made – and not to provide various other requested documents (e.g., the constating documents of all registered CAAAs at the time of the decision). However, the affidavit of the CRA decision maker stated that “all relevant materials upon which the CRA relied … have been produced.” ...

The Tax Court found that the transferred assets represented about 68% of the fair market value of the assets of the Tissue Division – and perhaps significantly less, given that some of the Tissue Division assets had not been valued. Accordingly, the requirement of s. 54.2- that all or substantially all of the assets of the business have been transferred to a corporation – had not been met, so that s. 54.2 did not deem the gain on the share sale to be a capital gain. ...

. … [T]o succeed, the claim for punitive damages must rest upon a finding of intentional conduct and an unlawful deprivation of property. … The deprivation (if the word is appropriate) intended by the CRA was the payment of monies in satisfaction of tax assessments issued in accordance with the ITA and the Income Tax Regulations. ...

After noting (at para. 14) that “In order for the Minister to assess a policyholder under … subsection 148(1)… the “adjusted cost basis” of the policy to the policyholder immediately before its disposition must be determined by applying the formula set out in subsection 148(9),” Spiro J stated (at para 25): The courts have consistently held that unless the Minister’s assumptions of fact are sufficient to support the assessment under the relevant legislation, the onus does not shift to the taxpayer. ... …[T]he amount included in computing the income of each Appellant … was simply an amount equal to the “proceeds of the disposition” of each policy…. ...