Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

. … [T]he builder simply cannot grant the credit without having already received the prescribed form of the purchaser as described in paragraph 254(4)(c). ... After indicating that there was an imperative requirement in the wording of s. 254(5)(a) that the builder forward the purchaser forms with its return claiming the rebate amount, she stated (at para. 64): Consequently, the builder who has not conformed with the requirements of s. 254(5)(a) cannot deduct an amount in this regard in the computation of its net tax …. ...

. … There is no doubt in my mind that the epinephrine and its salts and the anesthetic solutions containing epinephrine supplied by the appellant come within the definition of the term “drug” as defined under the Canadian Food and Drugs Act … However, drugs which have epinephrine as their sole active ingredient are different from those that have epinephrine combined with another active ingredient, such as the anesthetics in issue. ...

Webb J.A. dismissed the appeal, stating (at paras 16, 21, 28 and 30): Although … [Bocock J] states …that “all taxpayers, who are directly subject to GAAR assessments, that is, non-third parties, are required to consider and apply GAAR”, in my view it is more accurate to state that all taxpayers who are contemplating a transaction or series of transactions that would result in a tax benefit should consider the risk that GAAR will apply to deny the tax benefit. ... As well, the requirement that the Minister in GAAR cases must establish that a tax benefit is not consistent with the object, spirit or purpose of the provisions relied upon by the taxpayer cannot justify a finding that any liability for any increased taxes would only arise once that reassessment is issued. … There is nothing in the Act that stipulates that the increased liability as a result of a reassessment based on GAAR only arises when the reassessment is issued. ...

After finding that a settlement agreement had been reached (given the parties’ mutual intention to create legal relations, the flowing of consideration, sufficiently clear terms, and a matching on all essential terms), Lyons J went on to note (at para. 62) that: University Hill … reaffirmed the principles in Galway and CIBC and commented that settling the quantum of expenses is not an all or nothing function and involved a compromise of facts, therefore, “the Court will only interfere if the agreed‑upon facts clearly have no bearing to reality.” In finding that this “bearing to reality” test was satisfied, she stated (at paras. 77 and 78): I … find that the [non-capital loss] existed and was available for carry-forward to the March 2007 TY having flowed from the Pool from years prior to the 2007 Years that had been reassessed by the Minister based on the CRA records which included CBS’ filings. ...

The taxpayer had made an offer to the Minister on what C Miller J had described as a principled basis, namely, that the Minister would apply GAAR to GBL’s 2006 to 2013 years – but not to the earlier years on the basis that they were not covered by waivers provided. The Crown rejected this offer and made its own offer (which was made too close to trial to qualify under Rule 147(3.2), and was also rejected) that provided a concession on the characterization of foreign exchange gains and losses realized by GBL In finding that the Crown should not receive an award of costs notwithstanding its total success, C Miller J stated (at para. 11): [T]he Respondent had success in the ultimate result, but it was due to the one issue – the conduct of business principally with persons with whom it did not deal at arm’s length. ...

. … [I]it is only relevant to determine whether the Minister acted “with all due dispatch” during the two months that followed receipt of the application from the Builder and I have no difficulty in concluding that the Minister has satisfied that requirement. Even if the issue had been whether the Minister had acted “with all due dispatch” in the 12 months or so that followed receipt, I would have found that this was an acceptable period of time. … Words and Phrases with all due dispatch ...

., 2004 FCA 131, Near JA stated: (at para 4): … [W]hile not binding, opinions of the WCO must “at least be considered” in determining the classification of goods imported into Canada…. ... Near JA allowed the appeal, finding (at para 5): … [I]t is far from clear why the absence of castors and the location of the proposed use of the stands would make the stands in this case a part suitable for use solely or principally with televisions. ...

However … the CRA lost or destroyed the documents. In light of this evidence, it would be unfair to place the onus on the appellants. In finding that for the 2007 year, the onus was instead on the taxpayers, and before finding that they had failed to discharge this onus, she stated (at para. 29): The appellants had available to them Newgate’s 2007 income tax return, as well as that of its associated corporation …. ...

. … When assessing a request for the re-apportionment of an SBC, the Minister should also have regard to whether denial of the request might possibly result in the Minister’s inability to collect outstanding tax arrears from a taxpayer. … [T]he decision [is] unreasonable because it is not apparent or transparent that Forbes’ financial hardship was a factor in the decision-making process. ...

After quoting with approval the position in Memorandum 3.3 as to the meaning of "delivery" and "made available" (signifying constructive delivery) and quoting with approval the statement in Marshall and Van Allen v Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, [1956] OR 930 (Ont CA) that “Delivery is accomplished by the purchaser obtaining the actual physical possession of the goods or, if certain conditions are present, there may be a symbolical delivery which divests the seller's possession,” she stated (at paras. 99, 104): … [T]he focus in section 142 is on “delivered”. Generally, that equates to delivery of a full voluntary transfer of possession of the property to the buyer immediately upon physical possession by the buyer without restriction. … Clearly, Customers were given full possession of the Jewellery at the time these were hand delivered, before or after airport security. ...