Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

This was accomplished by setting up a sandwich structure immediately after the acquisition, under which a new Canadian unlimited liability company, capitalized with notes and high-PUC shares, held the shares of a U.S. corporation holding Univar Canada – so that such U.S. corporation could distribute the shares of Univar Canada (on a Treaty-exempt basis) to its controlling Canadian purchaser (the ULC) without technically being affected by the s. 212.1(1) deemed dividend rule. ... Whether the surplus of the Canadian corporation is removed by completing the alternative transactions described … above or by completing the transactions that were done in this case, the same surplus is removed from Canada. ...

In confirming the finding below that the appellant was a loan corporation, notwithstanding that it did not accept deposits from the public (as contemplated in for example, the use of that term under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act (Ontario)), Near JA stated (at paras 26, 27, 35): I agree … that the words loan corporation mean “a corporation that makes loans” (TCC Decision at para. 120). … There are no references in the text to regulated entities or to deposits. ...

Gervais’ income, Noël CJ stated (at paras 50 and 51): … Subparagraph 40(1)(a)(i) required that the ACB of the shares sold by Ms. ... That result, although it flows from the text of the relevant provisions, is contrary to the object, spirit and purpose of subsections 73(1) and 74.2(1), the purpose of which is to ensure that a gain (or loss) deferred by reason of a rollover between spouses or common-law partners be attributed back to the transferor. … Because the rollover provided for in subsection 73(1) deferred this accrued gain [of $1M] in its entirety, the whole of the gain realized on the sale to BW Technologies had to be attributed back to Mr. ...

Before so finding, Noël CJ stated (at paras 62, 65, 68 and 73): The Tax Court judge … concluded that subsection 97(2) is not frustrated when deferred recapture goes untaxed, so long as [the] holding period [set out in s. 69(11)] is met. …[S]ubsection 69(11) is found in subdivision f, “Rules Relating to Computation of Income” whereas 97(2) is found in subdivision j which deals with “Partnerships and Their Members”. … It therefore cannot be said that subsection 69(11) was introduced in order to target subsection 97(2) rollovers…. ...

. … An element of the investment strategy of the RCF IV and RCF V partnerships was for members of the RCF Management team to occupy positions on boards of the companies in which RCF invested to guide management and to contribute to an increase in the value of the investments which were intended to be sold at a profit. That function was performed by employees in the Perth office …. Respecting the statutory reference to income derived “directly or indirectly,” he stated (at para. 51): The Commissioner submitted that the phrase directs attention “not merely to the proximate origin of the income, but also to those acts or matters which constitute contributory causes to the generation of income”, however, the adverbial phrase quantifies the word “derived” in the section rather than the word “source”. ...

Pagone J went on to find that (based on Commissioner of Taxation v Lamesa Holdings BV (1997) 77 FCR 597) that “consists of” language, such as that quoted above “was intended to assimilate as realty only one tier of companies rather than numerous tiers,” so that “the alienation by the partners of RCF IV and RCF V of the shares in Talison Minerals would not come within the terms of Article 13 consistently with the reasoning in Lamesa ” (para. 83). ... XIII exclusion to dispositions of shares of companies “the value of whose assets is wholly or principally attributable, whether directly, or indirectly through one or more interposed companies or other entities, to … real property or interests”. ...

. … To the extent they were not available for a game, the players were required to so inform the Team. It was not the player who could secure his replacement …. It was the Team who chose the replacement.... ...

The Queen, 2018 TCC 48-- summary under Small Business Corporation Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(1)- Small Business Corporation corp qualified as SBC where only business activity was unsuccessful efforts to sell its stock of equipment The market for the business of a corporation (“Radio Progressive “) of the taxpayer (Mr. ... Hébert from his disposition of its shares in August 2011 qualified as a business investment loss, Ouimet J stated (at paras. 19-22, TaxInterpretation translation): [19] In this case, the Court is of the view that Radio Progressive was carrying on an active business during the 12 months preceding its dissolution, namely in the 2010 and 2011 taxation years, despite the fact that its activities were minimal. … [20] Essentially, based on the evidence, Radio Progressive remained active in the years prior to its dissolution only in order to dispose of its stock of unsold radio communication equipment and parts. ...

. … [T]he 21 September 2010 orders are inefficacious in all relevant respects. ... They purport to require Sandini in that non-existent capacity to do things (order 3). … The fact that Sandini did things in another capacity (as trustee of the KRUT Sandini transferred shares to Wavefront) does not mean that the orders were efficacious. ...

Russell J further found that the taxpayer was not a de facto director, stating (at paras 38, 40): Jurisprudence reflects that the concept of de facto director should be limited to persons who hold themselves out as directors …. ... …[S]he engaged in no acts of management … let alone any actions specific to a director. ...