Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

The Tax Court had found: “[T]he parties believed that they had established a ‘contract of enterprise or for services’ [and not a contract of employment] …” (quoted at para. 10) However, the Tax Court had gone on to apply the four Wiebe tests referred to above, and concluded that "the objective reality of the employment relationship, including [such] factors … indicates that there was an employee/employer relationship" (quoted at para. 12). ...

In finding that the Tax Court lacked the authority, in proceedings instituted by the taxpayer (“BCS”) subject to the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), to permit BCS to be represented by the (non-lawyer) individual (“Gagnon”) who was its sole shareholder, director and officer – so that the Tax Court erred in finding “that Mr. Gagnon personified BCS and that he was exercising BCS’s right to appear ‘in person’” (para. 64), Gauthier JA stated (at paras. 6): … I have concluded that the legislator did not intend to oust the common law and civil law principle that a corporation, because of its very nature, cannot appear “in person” before a court. ...

Locke JA also found (at para. 36) that Pizzitelli J had not made reviewable errors in refusing to order production of unredacted copies of various other requested internal documents – and, in this regard, he agreed with Pizzitelli J’s application of the view “that earlier drafts of a final position paper do not have to be disclosed, and … that even where relevance is established, the Court has a residual discretion to refuse document production.” ...

Before providing such declaration, Davies J stated, based on the expert testimony (at para. 17): Under European law, Luxembourg law and Dutch law, pursuant to the principle of universal succession … all liabilities of LMGI to tax, including under foreign law (that is, the relevant Australian tax acts), will transfer to LMA by operation of law pursuant to the principle of universal succession upon completion of the merger, as will the rights and obligations of LMGI in respect of such tax liabilities …. ...

In finding that the taxpayer’s claimed losses (except for an overstatement of the 2002 loss due to an “egregious error” – for which a gross negligence penalty was sustained) were fully deductible, Spiro J noted- in responding to a Crown submission based on the trading consistently generating small economic losses, so that there was no source of income – that Stewart established that “provided that one’s activity is clearly commercial, and that no personal element is involved, there is a source of income” (para. 201) and made “it clear that there is no ‘sufficiency’ test” (para. 209). ...

Blue Bridge argued that it was the Minister’s responsibility to ensure that the “taxation … not contrary to the Convention” condition in Art. 26 was met before transmitting the requested information to France, whereas here, France was seeking to impose tax under a French wealth-tax statute which attributed all foreign trust assets to a French settlor or beneficiary in order to subject them to the tax, which in its view raised the possibility of the information being used to levy tax contrary to the Convention. ... She stated (at para. 47, TaxInterpretations translation): The judge rightly concluded that a requirement for thorough research and analysis of the facts and the law of the requesting State would impede the proper and effective operation of the Convention’s provisions …. ...

Walker J first found that the action was brought beyond the two-year limitations period under s. 4 of the Limitations Act (Ontario) given that an employee at the law firm for the taxpayer had received a letter in 2015 from CRA showing the issuances of the refund cheques in 2006 and 2007, so that the taxpayer “knew of his loss … in sufficient detail to bring his claim for unjust enrichment by early July 2015.” ... He is deemed to have received the Notices of Assessment and Refund Cheques pursuant to subsection 248(7) …. ...

. … Thus, Public CO2 had the power to terminate the trustees’ functions by revoking or not renewing their mandate as directors. … [T]he mechanism put in place clearly gave Public CO2 the ability to change the appellant’s board of directors or to influence in a very direct manner those who had that ability. ...

. … While the Applicants take issue with the Directors General’s mindset, as focusing on the goal of collecting taxes, it was within the Director General’s discretion to be influenced significantly by the public interest in collection of taxes. … ...

There was a s. 171(1) “Billing Agent Election “election in place between them, so that Castle was responsible for the GST/HST reporting of CBS’s sales- and so that if CBS had bothered to register and file GST/HST returns (which it did not), they would have been nil returns (assuming that a s. 156 election applied to Castle’s sales to CBS – otherwise, Castle was required to charge GST/HST, with CBS effectively being required to claim ITCs). ... In particular, she stated (at para. 58): … The filing of the Billing Agent Election and the assumption by Castle of the administrative tasks of collection, reporting and remittance of CBS’s GST/HST does not affect the status of CBS as the supplier of the goods and services in respect of which the tax is collectible. ...