Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

. … For tax purposes, a bare trust is considered a non-entity in the sense that a beneficiary as principal, is considered to deal directly with property through the trustee as agent or nominee…. … Since I have concluded that Dr. ...

. … Subsection 323(1) of the ETA is an exemption from the common law and applies only to directors. ... However, …the legislator … limited the application of subsection 323(6) to the office of director. ...

. … Until such time as the contemplated transaction closed, it is arguable that Aviva could have carved up its rights to acquire the shares among other persons so that, at closing, it would acquire not more than 20 per cent of the target company. ... Similarly, in the Court of Appeal, Noël CJ dismissed the appeal, stating (at paras 50, 54, TaxInterpretations translation): [T]he reality is the holding of a future right to acquire shares does not equate to the holding of shares to which such right relates. … [N]othing in this case suggests that the purchase option conferred by [the shareholders’ agreement] was intended to frustrate section 148 of the ARDFPS. ...

Nor was there an abuse of the partnership income allocation provisions of ss. 103 and 96 – it was totally conventional that close to 100% of the income of the LP was allocated to the corporation (Nuinsco) which was the limited partner at the partnership (HLP) year end. ... The income reallocated to Partnerco through GAAR did not change from ignoring the deemed year end. … ...

. … In particular, a supply must be regarded as ancillary to a principal supply if it does not constitute for customers an end in itself but a means of better enjoying the principal service supplied…. ... …Stock ‘94 itself acknowledges …, not having authorisation to act as a credit institution, it could not grant loans to the integrated producers without their being intended for the purchase of its current assets. ...

In finding that the appellant was not entitled to claim input tax credits given the failure of the invoices (for amounts over $150) provided to him to satisfy the requirements of the Input Tax Credit Information (GST/HST) Regulations (and after underlining the requirement in s. 3(c)(iv) thereof that there be a “description of each supply sufficient to identify it”), Bédard J. stated (at paras. 23-24): Since the purpose of paragraph 169(4)(a) of the ETA and the Regulations is to protect the consolidated revenue fund against both fraudulent and innocent incursions … a description is sufficient when it allows the Agency to identify the work performed by the suppliers. ... [In] all the invoices submitted … at least one mandatory element of information is missing. ...

Before declaring that the taxpayer was supplying “taxi travel,” Griffiths J stated (at paras. 135, 138): … I consider that the words in s 195-1 should be given their ordinary, everyday meanings and not a trade or specialised meaning (including one which reflects what Dr Abelson describes as a “regulatory concept”). I accept …that the ordinary meaning of the word “taxi” is a vehicle available for hire by the public and which transports a passenger at his or her direction for the payment of a fare that will often, but not always, be calculated by reference to a taximeter. … The fact that his car did not have a taximeter installed in it is not determinative…. ...

. … [A] contextual and purposive analysis…leads to the conclusion that the words “loan corporation” as used in the Attribution Regulations…mean a corporation whose principal business is the making of loans…. ... In my view, if Parliament had intended such a result it would have added that specific condition to the legislation. … Words and Phrases loan corporation ...

In allowing the taxpayer’s appeal, D’Arcy J stated (at paras 31, 32, and 33): … [T]he Appellant paid Gary McCrea and Tom McCrea wages of $38,880 solely for the work Gary McCrea and Tom McCrea performed conducting SR&ED. ... Counsel for the Respondent argued that… Gary McCrea and Tom McCrea did not receive any compensation for the significant time they spent “performing director or management activities” for the Appellant. … As the controlling shareholders and managing directors of the Appellant, they chose to receive dividends in lieu of salary and/or bonuses. ...

It is clear … the Commissioner dealt with TD’s request on the basis that her discretion was circumscribed by the extraordinary-circumstances exception. … By doing so, she fettered the broad discretion given to her by s. 24(1) of the IBAA, and her decision is, therefore, unreasonable. ...