Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

. … It is provided that in such a case, by virtue of the dissolution of a business corporation, its rights and obligations become those of its sole shareholder, which becomes a party to any judicial or administrative proceeding to which the dissolved corporation was a party. ...

. … [T]he presumed existence of business acumen should not be treated as absolute, irrefutable or sacrosanct. ...

. … That she may have held the funds in trust for Mr. Chapman does not assist her: subsection 160(1) is rather specific on this point. ...

Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458 … at paragraph 51). In the present case, all of the evidence necessary to consider the applicability of subsection 253(b) of the Act was adduced at trial and I am satisfied that the respondent will not be prejudiced by allowing the appellant to raise this argument; it was the respondent who raised at trial the issue of whether the appellant was carrying on business in Canada when the loss on the sale of shares was incurred ...

Hesler CJQ further dismissed the appellants claim that a Quebec regulation requiring retailers to verify, at the time of sale, the identity of a purchaser claiming to be an Indian, undercut the exclusive federal power over Indians, stating (at paras 100 & 112): …Notwithstanding s. 91(24), provincial laws of general application apply proprio vigore to Indians and Indian lands… …[T]he appellants’ failure to acknowledge or avail themselves of workable solutions does not render the budget measures unconstitutional… [T[heir refusal to participate more likely flows from a desire to preserve a competitive advantage than an inability to shoulder an excessive administrative burden. ...

(paras. 33 – 36). Lyons J further concluded that the taxpayer was working within Wellspring’s business for his benefit as an employee, evidenced by lack of separate books and records and invoices, and that Wellspring operated out of his residence at the same time that he claimed to be an independent contractor. ...

This was accomplished by setting up a sandwich structure immediately after the acquisition under which a new Canadian ULC, with high outside PUC, held the shares of a U.S. corporation holding the low-PUC shares of Univar Canada – so that such U.S. corporation could distribute the shares of Univar Canada to its controlling Canadian purchaser (the ULC) without technically being affected by the s. 212.1(1) deemed dividend rule. ...

. … The fact that that purchaser allows parts of the building…to be used without charge is of no importance…. ...

. … [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. ...

. … It is clear that the...$4,989.73 was not incurred by the Appellant to collect or establish a right to salary or wages. ...