Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

. … The Tax Court impermissibly read the words “and until” into subsection 227.1(2) in order to conclude that a director’s liability does not arise under subsection 227.1(1) “unless and until the relevant preconditions in subsection 227.1(2) are satisfied”…. ... Canada, 2001 FCA 84 to be “to strengthen the Crown’s ability to enforce the statutory obligation imposed on corporations to remit source deductions” (para. 25): The interpretation adopted by the Tax Court renders this purpose nugatory and pointless. … Parliament cannot have intended the directors’ liability provision to be avoided as it was in the present case. ...

As a technical matter, s. 112(3.1) did not apply to deny any portion of this capital loss because the NSULC paid all its dividends on a separate class of preferred shares that it had issued as a stock dividend – rather than on the common shares on which the LP had realized the loss. ... When Parliament intends to restrict a particular deeming rule to only certain provisions of the Act, it clearly does so. … ...

As a technical matter, s. 112(3.1) did not apply to deny any portion of this capital loss because the NSULC paid all its dividends on a separate class of preferred shares that it had issued as a stock dividend – rather than on the common shares on which the LP had realized the loss. ... When Parliament intends to restrict a particular deeming rule to only certain provisions of the Act, it clearly does so. … ...

On the sale of the debtor’s property “despite any security interest in the property or in the proceeds thereof … the proceeds of the property shall be paid to the Receiver General in priority to all security interests.” ... Respecting the implications of this decision, she stated (at para. 85): [S]ecured lenders … may identify higher risk borrowers (which might include persons operating sole proprietorships), require borrowers to give evidence of tax compliance, or require borrowers to provide authorization to allow the lender to verify with the Canada Revenue Agency whether there are outstanding GST liabilities then known to the Agency. ...

However, it was precluded by statute from going back more than three years with its refund claims – but there was no such time limitation where a repayment of VAT was claimed based on there being “a decrease in consideration for a supply.” Before rejecting the taxpayer’s argument that its change in calculating the consideration for its supplies involved a “decrease in consideration,” so that it could go back more than three years, Lord Legatt stated (at para. 30) that it was “clear that there can be only one correct method of calculating the taxable element of fees charged to customers for playing cash bingo and … this was the session by session method and not the game by game method.” ...

This in turn means that the obligation to pay refunds is necessarily conditioned by the Minister’s obligation under section 275 of the ETA to confirm that they are in fact owing …. ... Rennie JA further stated (at paras 49 and 51): … I do not wish to be taken as endorsing the Minister’s arguments that the issuing of the notices of assessment deprives the Federal Court of jurisdiction to consider the Minister’s exercise of discretion under the ETA. ...

Noël CJ noted (at para. 68) that, although the 2010 assessment of 984 was a nil assessment: Aside from the fundamental distinction drawn … in Okalta, an assessment that levies tax and a nil assessment have the same legal effect i.e. both start the limitation period when issued as the original notice, both replace a prior assessment or reassessment when issued as the last notice, and both fix the tax payable for the year. ... Finally, it also did not matter that no reassessment had been issued to bring the 2003 tax payable back from zero, as per the 2010 nil assessment, to the amount initially assessed, given that inter alia “ Markevich makes it clear that an excessive refund can be assessed even if the power to issue a reassessment for the year pursuant to subsection 152(4) has expired” (para. 77). ...

On January 4, 2011, the taxpayer filed a Notice of Appeal respecting losses from the Sierra Trinity transactions – but due to an error, also disputed the disallowance of the Trinity Denton losses (because new counsel were unaware of the 1994 settlement). ... Finally, Strickland J noted (at para 119): … [T]he Third Reassessment, undertaken on December 19, 2014, fell outside the March 4, 2014 limitation period expiry and could not extend, restart or revive the exhausted limitation period. ...

Regarding the failure to satisfy the first test, Locke JA noted that the Crown did not become aware of the relevance of the additional evidence until six days before the hearing of the Tax Court motion, at which point there was no established procedure for introducing such evidence – but nonetheless found (at para. 14) that he was “not convinced that the appellant could not have sought, and possibly obtained, leave to put the evidence before the Tax Court.” In nonetheless allowing the new evidence, he stated (at paras. 21, 24): … I am conscious that the motion before the Tax Court was an interlocutory matter, and the respondent’s opportunity to adduce this evidence was limited because of the absence of a clear procedural mechanism for doing so. ...

In rejecting the taxpayer’s argument that “in the settlement agreement, the reference to ‘consequential adjustments’ should be interpreted as only those adjustments that could be made under subsection 152(4.3) …, which would not include the restoration of income for his 1998 taxation year, as was done by the Minister” (para. 26), and that the Tax Court had not made reviewable error in finding that the settlement agreement allowed the Minister to make the implementing reassessment, Webb JA stated (at paras 25, 27): When the settlement was reached and the losses were recognized (subject to certain adjustments) and the carrying charges were allowed, this was, in effect, a recognition that the partnerships were valid partnerships. A further consequence of recognizing the partnerships as valid partnerships is that the amount of income that had been removed should be restored. … [T]he expression "consequential adjustment" does not appear anywhere in the text of subsection 152(4.3) of the Act, nor for that matter anywhere in the Act. ...