Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

Moreover, the legislature did not explicitly exclude the Division of the statute relating to employee stock options from the application of section 422 …. ... Section 54 does not prevent the ARQ from relying on the presumptions set out in the T.A. in computing a taxpayer’s taxable income. … [W]hile section 54 ensures that sections 49 et seq. of the T.A. apply to benefits arising from the granting of stock options and excludes those benefits from the ambit of sections 36 and 37 [similar to ITA ss. 5 and 6(1)(a)], it does not, in the absence of clear legislative indicia to this effect, constitute a code so complete and so hermetic that the application of section 422 is excluded. ...

Gagné objected on the basis inter alia that he had ceased being a director for more than two years before such reassessment, and a few days before the trial of the appeal of his estate (following his death) from such reassessment, its notice of appeal was amended to allege inter alia that Gagné had never been a director (given that the proper corporate procedures had not been followed for his appointment, including his consenting to such appointment. and there being an absence of any resolution appointing him) – an argument that Gagné. ... Third persons may submit any proof to refute the information contained in a declaration …. and noted that the ARQ had been entitled to rely on the rebuttable presumption arising under s. 62. ...

. … [S]ubparagraph 56(1)(u)(ii) does have, unintentionally, a profoundly detrimental effect upon subsection 122.62(5), frustrating both purpose and proper application of that provision … as to allowing proper re-determination of CCB entitlement. ...

Before dismissing the taxpayer’s appeal, Owen J noted that Parliament had amended s. 31(1) to overrule Craig and provide that the taxpayer’s farming loss deduction will be limited under s. 31(1) for taxpayers who do not look to farming, or to farming and some subordinate source of income, for their livelihood, and stated (at para. 134): [F]or the Taxation Years and for all prior taxation years in which the Appellant carried on the farming business … [t]he Appellant looked to her medical practice for her livelihood and used the net income from her medical practice to fund her farming business, which could not survive without that funding. ... After having noted (at para. 108) that “[t]here is no evidence that calls into question … that the Appellant pursued her clearly commercial farming activity for profit”, Owen J stated (at para. 136): The result in this appeal is most unfortunate. ...

The Minister denied the companies’ applications for relief from interest and penalties accrued during their 2014 through 2020 taxation years, made on the basis of “extraordinary circumstances leading to … financial hardship.” ... Otherwise, relief was denied largely on the basis that “the director remained responsible to take the necessary measures … to ensure that all obligations [were] met when required” and failed to do so, and also relief was denied under the financial hardship ground as the appropriate financial arrangements to pay the arrears including borrowing and restructuring finances to retire the debt had been made. ...

DERP2 then distributed its resource properties to DEML as a return of capital, thereby increasing the COGPE balance of DEML and reducing the ACB of DEML’s partnership interest by the FMV of the rights (higher than the value a year earlier) – but with these items effectively being approximately reversed at the partnership year end as a result of DERP2’s proceeds of the distribution of the PNG rights being allocated to its partners. ... In confirming CRA’s GAAR assessment to deny the capital loss, Russell J stated (at paras. 47, 56): Here the substantial Capital Loss was claimed where there was no economic loss or impoverishment, thus per Triad Gestco breaching the OSP [object, spirit and purpose] of the Act’s capital loss provisions, including paragraph 39(1)(b). … As the purpose of the capital loss provisions is to recognize real losses, there is clear abuse where artificial losses are deducted. ...

. … The object, spirit and purpose of the definition of CCPC is to provide a dividing line between those corporations that are taxed under the specific regime for CCPCs and those corporations that are not taxed under this regime. ... This is exactly what Parliament intended. … [T]he Appellant’s choice to be taxed as a non-CCPC did not abuse section 123.3 since Parliament only intended it to apply to a corporation’s investment income that is taxed under the regime for CCPCs. ...

. … [T]he loyalty reward points might not be redeemed for months or even years after the transaction with the non-resident merchant. In addition, there is a geographical consideration in that the Foreign Interchange Service was provided to a non-resident merchant acquirer while expenses to redeem the points are incurred by RBC in Canada. … [E]xpenses incurred by RBC in the redemption of loyalty reward points were inextricably linked and an integral component of the Appellant’s agreement to extend credit pursuant to the Cardholder Agreement. ...

In finding that Harvard Properties and NH Properties, were not dealing with each other at arm’s length, Boyle J stated (at paras. 155, 161): Given the agreement for Abacus to pay a premium to the co-owners to purchase the co-owners’ interests … the steps and the amounts in the series of transactions cannot be considered to reflect ordinary commercial dealings. … Harvard Properties, Abacus and NH Properties clearly acted together to dictate [the] Newcos’ actions from their inception and throughout the closing of this series of transactions. ...

. … In the absence of a complete and convincing argument demonstrating that sections 152(3.4), 164(1)(b) and 125.7(5) of the ITA, considered together, defeat the interpretation proposed by Lemay based on the Minister having the discretion to accept the filing of an amended prescribed form, the defendant has therefore not discharged its burden of demonstrating that it is clear and obvious that the interpretation proposed by Lemay has no reasonable chance of acceptance …. ...