Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

The Queen, 2020 TCC 6-- summary under Subsection 163(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 163- Subsection 163(2) taxpayer not subject to penalty where its CPA firm made inexplicable errors D’Auray J found that a one-man corporation that had a business of constructing (through using third-party contractors) and selling about 10 or 20 new homes per year had not been demonstrated by the Crown to be liable for gross negligence penalties for failure to report in its GST returns two of the home sales it made in the 2 ½ year audit period. ...

. … Even on a broad interpretation of paragraph 12(a), the appellant did not ship the jewellery to a destination outside of Canada that was specified in a contract of carriage. ...

. … [T]he letter agreement between Pangaea and Thomvest is a “restrictive covenant,” as defined, because the agreement is intended to affect the provision of property by Pangaea by having an effect on its disposition. ...

. … [T]he letter agreement between Pangaea and Thomvest is a “restrictive covenant,” as defined, because the agreement is intended to affect the provision of property by Pangaea by having an effect on its disposition. ...

Here, the judge’s discretion was exercised consistent with the objective of this rule …. ...

., 2020 FCA 64-- summary under Subsection 18.1(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Other Legislation/Constitution- Federal- Federal Courts Act- Section 18.1- Subsection 18.1(2) CBSA required to revisit an adverse decision due to its failure to explain a departure from past practices In a specialized customs tariff remission context, De Montigny JA agreed with Zinn J of the Federal Court that a decision of the CBSA- to deny a request of a clothing manufacturer (Honey Fashion) to have the name of the importer of record changed from the actual importer to that of Honey Fashion (in order that Honey Fashion could generate remission claims for the importations in question) – should be reversed given that the CBSA decision did not give any explanation as to why it was not following its practice in previous such claims of allowing such a name change. ...

. … The officer was not responding to an application for judicial review of the decision, something that had not yet been commenced at the time of the exchanges. ...

(Shell …). The emphasis in the Tax Court’s reasons on an unexpressed intention of competition is not appropriate in this case which involves a FAPI scheme that is drafted with mind-numbing detail. ...

. … Glenhuron was not managing Loblaw’s money but its own. It was an error of law for the Court to consider that Glenhuron’s money belonged to Loblaw. ...

He noted (at para. 33) that the UK domestic deeming provision instead only had a limited purposes, which was to give the diver access to more generous deductions from income, and stated that to apply this limited “deeming provision … so as to alter the meaning of terms in the Treaty with the result of rendering a qualifying diver immune from UK taxation would be contrary to its purpose.” ...