Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

. … 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 …. ...

In this regard, Gagnon J first noted (at para. 62, TaxInterpretations translation): [I]f one party is enriched and the other impoverished by the same amount, it will be possible to conclude that the party who became richer did not offer equivalent consideration …. In finding that that was the situation here, he indicated that: “the trustee's distributions had no impact on the rights of a beneficiary of the Trust who had or had not received a distribution” (para. 65); and although the taxpayer “had a right under the Trust to be considered by the trustee for any distribution on the same basis as the other beneficiaries … there is no reason to believe that anyone would have paid even a very small amount for [this right]” (para. 67); In also rejecting the taxpayer’s submission that the deeming by s. 107(2) of proceeds for the distributed property equal to its cost amount constituted the receipt of consideration for s. 160(1)(e) purposes, Gagnon J stated (at para. 79) that “[w]hen there is a transfer of value between two patrimonies, there is a transfer within the meaning of subsection 160(1)” and it was “hardly conceivable that the tax treatment of a transaction could interact with the notion of transfer contemplated by Parliament for the purposes of subsection 160(1)” (para. 80). ...

The shareholder group consisted of (i) two unrelated individuals (Souty, and Foix – who held his shares through a passive portfolio company (“Virtuose”),) (ii) trusts for the two respective families (the Souty and Foix Trusts) and (iii) after giving effect to intricate preliminary transactions, two holding companies for Souty and Foix through which they held a portion of their shares of W4N (in the case of “Souty Holdco”) or of Virtuose (in the case of “Foix Holdco”). ... W4N selling its business assets to EMC for notes, thereby realizing a s. 14(1) eligible capital amount and an addition to its capital dividend account of $22 million, which was declared as a capital dividend to Souty Holdco and Virtuose – and then paid through a distribution of $22 million in notes immediately after step 5. ... EMC either agreed or proposed that W4N's shareholders withdraw W4N's excess cash fairly early in the discussions and negotiations. … I find that it was Messrs. ...

The Queen, 92 DTC 6595, [1993] 1 CTC 21 (FCTD)-- summary under Resolving Ambiguity Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Resolving Ambiguity Rothstein J. articulated various principles of the "modern, interpretative approach to the Income Tax Act " including the following principle: The Act should be applied as to affect the conduct of a taxpayer which has the designed effect of defeating the expressed intention of Parliament. ...

The Queen, 85 DTC 5034, [1985] 1 CTC 31 (FCA)-- summary under Resolving Ambiguity Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Resolving Ambiguity Since "paragraph 20(1)(gg) provides for an exception from the general rule for computing income for the purposes of taxation [,] a taxpayer seeking to benefit from such exception must bring himself clearly within the language of the legislation. ...

The Queen, 99 DTC 157 (TCC)-- summary under Subsection 56(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 56- Subsection 56(2) S.56(2) did not apply to an arrangement under which fees earned by companies as a result of a tax plan concocted by tax partners at Coopers & Lybrand were paid as dividends to family members or family trusts in respect of partners of the firm. ...

Stankovic, 2018 FC 462-- summary under Stare Decisis Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Stare Decisis Quebec CA decision relied upon In briefly disposing of the taxpayer's Charter arguments, Russell J stated (at para. 64): The issues raised by the Applicant on this point were addressed … by the Quebec Court of Appeal [Berger, 2016 QCCA 226]. ...

The Queen, 2019 TCC 132-- summary under Subsection 96(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 96- Subsection 96(2) s. 96(2) reinforced application of s. 102(2) Pizzitelli J found that, in light of ss. 96(2) and 102(2), partnership members of a limited partnership (“AIGLP”) were to be treated as members of AIGLP for s. 103(1.1) purposes – as were the trust members of AIGLP. ...

The question … is whether the fact that deferred gains and recapture will never be taxed frustrates the object, spirit and purpose of subsection 97(2). ... …[D]epreciable property or other types of property that give rise to a 100% rate of inclusion cannot be bumped. … The rationale [in s. 98(3)] is the same…. ... In finding that the object and spirit of s. 100(1) also had been circumvented, Noël CJ stated (at paras 101 and 102): …[S]ubsection 100(1) brings into income 100% of the gain resulting from the sale of a partnership interest to an exempt entity insofar as it is attributable to depreciable property. … Parliament wanted tax to be paid on the latent recapture which would otherwise go unpaid on a subsequent sale of the depreciable property by the tax-exempt purchaser. ...

Given that there were over 150 unitholders in each Income Fund holding a qualifying block of units, whether the units of the Income Funds qualified (under Reg. 4900(1)(d)) as units of mutual fund trusts turned principally on whether there had been a “lawful distribution in a province to the public of units of the trust and a prospectus … was not, under the laws of the province, required to be filed in respect of the distribution” (Reg. 4801(a)(i)(A)). ... In this regard, Smith J found (at para. 266) that the subscribing “minors were not legally competent to sign the Risk Acknowledgement form” required to be given by them and that “the Alberta and BC securities commission intended that this document would only be signed by adult subscribers who had legal capacity,” that the minors’ subscriptions “were … unlawful” (para. 291) and (regarding over 25 of the subscriptions by adult Investors) the Minister’s unrebutted “assumption that these adults did not pay for their own units was sufficient to indicate that they had not purchased the units as principal for their own account” (para. 313). ... Anything less than that would not be “a lawful distribution” since it would be contrary to the precise terms of the OM. … The Income Funds did not qualify as a “mutual fund trust” because they failed to satisfy the prescribed condition that there be “a lawful distribution …to the public of units” under the laws of the provinces of Alberta and BC to not fewer than 160 investors as required by the OM. ...