Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

. … IPL2 stands for the proposition that...gross income from a source in a particular location must be reduced by any deduction that may reasonably be regarded as applicable to that source. ... It seems unlikely that the tax sparing provision was intended…to operate to shelter not only Brazilian interest income from Canadian tax, but income from other sources unrelated to Brazil as well. … After noting (at paras. 69-70) that: Article 23B of the 1977 OECD Model....uses the phrase “that part of the income tax… which is attributable…to the income…which may be taxed in that other state.” ...

. … What it supplies is the agreement to use the Annual Resort Fees to fund its operations. … This…is the supply of something other than property. ...

. … [T]here was no evidence…that the bonuses were…intended…to reasonably compensate the Appellant for her duties of employment. … [T]he Appellant received remuneration through her bi-weekly pay that was roughly equivalent to Mike’s remuneration, except for 2008 when the Appellant’s regular pay exceeded Mike’s. ...

. … This series of transactions permitted the appellant, on the redemption of the Class G shares of Gestion Pierre Pomerlau Inc., to extract as a tax-free return of capital, $994,628 derived from the surplus of his corporation by virtue of utilizing his capital gains deduction and that of his mother and sister. … But for already having isolated the so-called “soft” adjusted cost base in the Class G shares of P Pom Inc. in order to generate a capital loss from their redemption, with a resulting increase in the adjusted cost base of the Class A shares of P Pom Inc., it would not have been possible to avoid the tax consequences arising under section 84.1 of the Act. ...

. … Together, these prevent the extraction of corporate surplus tax-free in such circumstances and preclude the return of an amount of capital tax-free in excess of an investor’s original contribution…. ... Individual taxpayers should not be allowed to use their capital gains exemption to strip corporate surpluses by entering into non-arm’s length transactions which are similar to those addressed in section 84.1 nor obtain excess PUC tax-free. … [T]he…transactions…achieved a result (extraction of corporate surplus indirectly and use of his exemption) that section 84.1 was intended to prevent and defeats its underlying rationale and did so by misusing the PUC computation in subsection 89(1) to trigger the share averaging thus artificially inflated the PUC in The Shares held by Mr. ...

. … Parliament in enacting legislation for the taxation of emoluments or earnings from employment has sought to tax remuneration paid in money or money’s worth. No persuasive rationale has been advanced for excluding from the scope of this tax charge remuneration in the form of money which the employee agrees should be paid to a third party, or where he arranges or acquiesces in a transaction to that effect. … In finding that the relevant source deduction (“PAYE”) regulations pointed in the same direction, he noted that s. 21 thereof spoke of making “a relevant payment to an employee,” Regulation 12 provided that “other payees are treated as employees,” and stated (at para. 40): I therefore read “payment to an employee” or essentially similar phrases in the subordinate legislation as a reference to the payment of the employee’s emoluments whether to the employee or to another person. ...

Graham J found (at para 37): … Since the ingredients that follow the phrase “composed wholly of” in the exemption are “agricultural or plant product grown in Canada”, the text of the exemption clearly requires that, at whatever time the test is to be applied, the wine must contain no ingredients other than agricultural or plant products grown in Canada. ... Graham J found (at paras 107- 109): … Applying the test at fermentation will cause less harm to the purpose of the exemption than applying it at packaging. ...

Under the investment component: The taxpayer purchased a minimum of 10 limited partnership units (the “LP Units”) in an Ontario limited partnership (the “2009 LP” – whose general partner was owned by a family trust of the owner of the promoter (“EquiGenesis”)) for $36,140 per LP unit, of which $32,000 was funded by a loan (a “Unit Loan,”) – which had a maturity date in February 2019, was secured by a pledge of the LP Units, bore interest at 7.85%, all of which in fact was funded with further cash advances from the lender (“capitalized interest”), who was a trust (“FT”)- and the balance was funded by the taxpayer. ...

S. 43(2) of the IHTA provided: "Settlement" means any disposition or dispositions of property, whether effected by instrument, by parol or by operation of law, or partly in one way and partly in another, whereby the property is for the time being – (a) held in trust for persons in succession or for any person subject to a contingency, or (b) held by trustees on trust to accumulate the whole or part of any income of the property or with power to make payments out of that income at the discretion of the trustees or some other person, with or without power to accumulate surplus income…. ... Thus he did not shrink from submitting that in 2001 Mr Dreelan made three separate settlements for IHT purposes when he settled the original £100 on the trusts of the 2001 Settlement and then made two further transfers of property to it, even though any trust lawyer would say that Mr Dreelan had made a single settlement and then added property to it. … …I consider the better view to be that the 2001 Settlement was a single settlement for IHT purposes, constituted by a number of separate dispositions of property to be held on the trusts thereof. ...

Convention because of the exclusion in Art. 13 for dispositions of (deemed) real property situated in Australia, given s. 3A(1) of the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 (Cth), which extended the application of the Art. 13 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”. ... It follows that on this basis of assessment of the RCF IV and RCF V partners there is to be excluded from the taxable value of the capital gain, the value attributable to the general purpose leases, the miscellaneous licence and the plants used in the processing operations rather than in the mining. … Whether the interests of the applicants in Talison Lithium also passed the principal asset test, for the purposes of s 855-25(1)(b), requires consideration of whether 50% or more of the market value of the assets of Talison Lithium were attributable to Australian real property. ...