Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

Webb JA found that the taxpayer was estopped from now arguing that the amounts that she had treated as dividends in fact were not dividends (so that s. 160 did not apply to their payment)- because the appropriate procedures for the declaration and payment of the amounts as dividends were not followed and because s. 38(3) of the OBCA prohibited the payment of a dividend by an insolvent corporation – on the basis of the application of the principle that: [A] taxpayer who has benefited from having an amount included in his or her income as a dividend in a particular taxation year (and who has not objected to the assessment of tax based on having received this dividend) is estopped from claiming in any subsequent appeal related to the application of section 160 of the Act, that the previous filing position was wrong. ...

Since section 18.5 of the Federal Courts Act only excludes the Federal Court from reviewing a decision when another Act expressly provides a right of appeal, this determination would lead to the finding that section 18.5 … is not a bar to the Federal Court judicially reviewing this decision of the Minister. ...

Agence du revenu du Québec, 2022 QCCQ 1175-- summary under Paragraph (a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 127- Subsection 127(9)- Contract Payment- Paragraph (a) expenditures under an agreement to develop software for a 3rd party pursuant to its specifications were not associated with contract payments The taxpayer (“CS Canada”), which carried on a business of developing software for use in the aeronautics industry, entered into a “long term purchase agreement” with a third party (“Pratt & Whitney” or “P&W”) for the sale to it of control system software. ...

Spiro J stated (at para. 34): Having applied the criteria … in Moldowan, I find that each factor (other than time spent), weighs heavily in favour of the conclusion that the Appellant did not carry on his farm business with a reasonable expectation of profit. ...

Likewise there should not be liability for the three paragraph 162(7)(a) failure to file penalties, as the defence of due diligence has been established – that is, the appellant reasonably believed in a mistaken set of facts that if true would have made his act or omission to act innocent. ...

. … The Respondent’s egregious history of defaults and non-compliance in these appeals, that there is no alternative available that could reasonably be expected to cause the Respondent to now comply, and that this has caused prejudice to the Appellants, are reason enough to allow these appeals. ...

Smith J confirmed CRA’s inclusions in Gestion Roy’s income under s. 15(1) of the annual premium amounts paid on Gestion Roy’s policies given that it was the owner of such policies (entitling it to the cash surrender value of the policies at any time), so that it was “enriched” when the premiums were paid by R3D – and indicated that it was irrelevant to this point that, in fact, Gestion Roy never received any distribution on its policies. ...

. … It is even more evident that all aspects of Dr. Axelrod’s reconstruction, in a patient’s mouth, of a significant portion of a tooth, using appropriate filling or restorative materials, were integral components of a composite supply. ...

. … Despite his unusual lifestyle and his propensity to ridicule his opponents, the appellant was a serious businessman. ...

The Court found that the application judge- who had noted the contrast between the above representation, and other representations and warranties in the SPA which were limited to the knowledge of the sellers – had reasonably concluded that such representation could be untrue as of the time of closing even if the prospect of reassessment was not reasonably expected by FQM. ...