Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

Miller J. concluded (at paras. 35 & 36): [T]he context of the “dividend refund” described in paragraph 129(1)(a) is within the system used to collect tax up front from a corporation and then to refund that tax, or part of it, when a dividend is paid out to a shareholder. … The purpose of the section 129 is to prevent tax deferral by placing the shareholder who has received the dividends in much the same tax position as if he had received the investment income himself without the intermediary corporation. ...

In rejecting the assessment officer’s position that the activities carried on by Adobe India were part of the taxpayer’s core business activities carried on through Adobe India as its permanent establishment, and that the taxpayer was subject to Indian income tax on a portion of its global profits based on the fraction of global R&D expenditures represented by those expended in India, Bakhru J stated (at paras. 23): [T]here is no dispute that Adobe India- which according to the AO is the Assessee’s PE – has been independently taxed on income from R&D services and such tax has been computed on the basis that its dealings with the Assessee are at arm’s length (that is, at ALP). Therefore, even if Adobe India is considered to be the Assessee’s PE, the entire income which could be brought in the net of tax in in the hands of the Assesee has already been so taxed in the hands of Adobe India … Thus…the facts in this case do not provide the AO any reason to believe that any part of the Assessee’s income has escaped assessment under the Act. ...

. … I can not accept the taxpayer’s submission that the only service which Three-W was paid to provide was that of recruiting students and it was entitled to its commissions once the students were registered regardless. … The service is not provided wholly outside Canada for purposes of paragraph 142(1)(g). ...

. … [T]he risk of such deductions being disallowed ought most efficiently to rest with those seeking to benefit from the scheme rather than with taxpayers at large. … I would disallow the claimed duty of care as a matter of public policy. ...

. … …[S]ubsection 100(1) looks at the capital gain otherwise determined under the Act and then determines which portion of the capital gain is taxable. The Respondent is, in effect, asking me to find that one of the purposes of subsection 100(1) is to base the capital gain not on the gain otherwise calculated under the Act, but rather on accrued gains (including recapture) of property held by the partnership. … If Parliament had intended such a result it would have drafted subsection 100(1) in a manner that required such a look-through, in other words, in a manner similar to new subparagraph 88(1)(d)(ii.1) of the bump rules. ...

. … [A] limitation period demands, for its application, precision in the date of resignation. ... Further, there is a two-year limitation period which constrains the Minister’s ability to initiate proceedings against directors for unremitted source deduction. … Reliance on the subjective intention or say-so of a director alone would allow a director to plant the seeds of retroactive resignation, only to rely on it at some later date should a director-linked liability emerge. ...

McDonald J found (at para 44) that this 2014 letter was a reviewable decision, but went on to find (at para 51) that the CRA decision was reasonable: … [T]he CRA…concluded that tax avoidance may have been a factor in the corporate reorganization. ... These conclusions are within the range of possible outcomes of the MAP process. … In further rejecting an argument that CRA had unfairly not let CGI know the basis for CRA’s concerns, McDonald J stated (at para. 59): The basis for CGI’s application for a refund was the TD Securities decision. ...

In turning to ADFT’s argument, Lederman J found that there was a valid waiver pursuant to the Ontario Act for purposes of waiving the normal reassessment period, stating (at paras. 32, 34): The word “purporting” means “signify, imply, profess to be … appear ostensibly to be”…. ... In this way, it implies or purports to be a prescribed form. … The prescription imposed by the Minister is sufficiently evidenced by the …indicia on the form. ...

He stated (at para 17): … If the original notice does not constitute notification of no tax payable in all provincial or territorial jurisdictions, then a taxpayer receiving such a notice, could be assessed for income taxes in any other province or territory indefinitely. … He also indicated that it was contradictory to treat the same (2012) Notice as a reassessment of Alberta tax and as an original assessment of Ontario tax. ...

. … …Athabasca’s purpose in acquiring the Books was to utilize these as inputs in its supply of exempt instructional services rather than to supply the Books by way of sale. Accordingly, I conclude “purpose” in the exclusionary phrase refers to the ultimate purpose. … …[T]he wording of the provision is clear that Athabasca was to have made a supply of the Books and not merely a transfer of ownership of the Books. ...