Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

. … … [T]here is no power given to the Minister to re-designate a consolidated trust as multiple trusts in the event that the conditions set out in paragraph 104(2)(b) are no longer met in a subsequent taxation year, nor is any process for applying for a re-designation provided. … … Had the purpose of the provision been to create an annual test, one would expect to find some indication that the designation would be done annually, or that it could be revoked at some future point. Paris J concluded (at para 24): … [T]he entire class of children and grandchildren are not income beneficiaries of each trust. Rather, a different part of the class is named in each of the trusts. … Therefore the trusts are not conditioned so that the income will ultimately accrue to the same group or class of beneficiaries. ...

Bocock J stated (at paras. 15, and 16): The two-step test for determining expert evidence admissibility was … clarified in White Burgess [2015 SCC 23, at para. 23] and may be summarized below: 1. ... Gatekeeper function / Residual discretion to exclude: This step is a cost-benefit analysis of the help and harm of the evidence. ... Sadoway’s report … comprised a legislative history and context concerning various federal statutes; and … represented observation evidence on wait times, durations and pathways for refugee determination. … … An expert opinion should be information that is outside the experience or knowledge of the judge. … [A]n expert witness’ legal opinion will not usually be necessary and should be excluded at the threshold step …. … The overall necessity and probative value of the topic as evidence from a lawyer is low relative to the time and cost of having an additional expert testify on topics already covered in the context of social science [reports] …. ...

Ahmar – before Strong Forming had to cease operations. In affirming that Mr. Ahmar had not made out the due diligence defence to director liability for failure to remit, Mactavish JA stated (at paras 23 and 24): … Mr. Ahmar made the conscious decision to have Strong Forming defer payment of its HST debt, and to use these revenues to satisfy other obligations in the hopes of turning the company’s financial position around. … … This Court … in Buckingham … state[ed] that the defence under section 323 “should not be used to encourage such failures by allowing a due diligence defence for directors who finance the activities of their corporation with Crown monies on the expectation that the failures to remit could eventually be cured”…. ...

In his concurring reasons (with which Nicola Davies LJ also agreed), Legatt LJ stated (at paras. 52-54): Counsel for Mr Jimenez … relied on a distinction … adopted … in Oroville Reman & Reload … between documents of notice that merely involve the supply of information with no threat of penalties in the event of non-compliance and documents involving a compulsory process or containing a command. ... Such a measure does not involve the performance of any official act within the territory of another state – as would, for example, sending an officer of Revenue and Customs to enter the person's business premises in a foreign state and inspect business documents that are on the premises pursuant to paragraph 10 of Schedule 36. Nor does it seem to me objectionable that the notice is expressed as a command rather than a mere request for the supply of information. … It is a further and separate question whether the imposition of a civil penalty under Part 7 of Schedule 36 for failure to comply with such a taxpayer notice would involve an exercise of enforcement jurisdiction. ...

.” – although partial relief was provided by cancelling the penalty for 2012 but not 2011. ... The requirement to file a return for 2011 only arose when she decided to claim the CCTB in 2014. … … [I]t is clear the Delegate’s mistaken belief that Ms. Takenaka was required to file a timely tax return influenced his determination that she had not acted diligently. … I find the Decision lacks justification and is not intelligible. … The Applicant’s “ second-level ” request for relief was based in part on her claim of hardship. ...

In addition … Mr. Ahmar had periodically injected funds into the company in an attempt to keep things going …. ... Ahmar made the conscious decision to have Strong Forming defer payment of its HST debt, and to use these revenues to satisfy other obligations in the hopes of turning the company’s financial position around. … … This Court … in Buckingham … state[ed] that the defence under section 323 “should not be used to encourage such failures by allowing a due diligence defence for directors who finance the activities of their corporation with Crown monies on the expectation that the failures to remit could eventually be cured”…. ...

In finding that there was no basis to reverse Bopcock J's finding that the taxpayer was liable for a s. 163(2) penalty, Dawson JA stated (at paras 4, 6-7): … [T]he Tax Court articulated the correct legal test for establishing gross negligence: neglect beyond a failure to use reasonable care. … i. The appellant signed his tax return without reviewing or reading it…. ii. … This… “constituted an unusual casualness” on the part of the appellant and reflected “insouciance and an indifferent delegation of responsibility”…. iii. … [T]he appellant arranged for an escrowed investment to be made in an amount to cover his estimated tax liability [which was] inexplicably redeployed contemporaneously with the filing of the 2007 return. … … [T]hese findings … support the Tax Court’s finding of wilful blindness amounting to gross negligence. ...

D’Auray J stated (at para. 29): Justice Noël … in … Kruco … agreed that the words “ earned or realized ” in subsection 55(2) refer to income after taxes. … In rejecting the 468’s further submission “that taxes have to be calculated at the end of the year and that at the end of the year Tri-Holdings did not owe any income tax” (para. 30) D’Auray J stated (at paras. 31, 33): As stated by Justice Sharlow in VIH Logging Ltd., supra, the phrase “income for the year” is not used in subsection 55(2) of the Act. … [T]he safe income of Tri-Holdings had to be determined immediately before December 13, 2006, namely before the first deemed dividend was generated. This is what the Minister did …. ...

The Queen, 2017 TCC 207, aff'd 2019 FCA 57-- summary under Subsection 16(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 16- Subsection 16(1) s. 16(1) operates symmetrically (no creditor interest – no debtor interest deduction) The taxpayer (“Amoco”) acquired Dome Petroleum in 1988 for $5.2B pursuant to a Plan of Arrangement. ... In other words, the amount is deemed to be interest for both parties. … … [N]o part of the amount that is due by the Appellant can reasonably be regarded as interest that is payable to APCJ under the terms and conditions of the exploration loan. … … [I]t is unthinkable that Parliament would have intended the asymmetrical treatment proposed by the Appellant as this would open the door to transactions in which one party receives a tax benefit and the other party receives a non-taxable payment.... ...

In finding that the Appellant was supplying a security service rather than a telecommunication service to its customers, so that relief under s. 80.2 was not available, the Court stated (at paras 4, 8): The judge agreed with the parties that the Appellant provides a single service (albeit comprised of several constituent elements)…according to … Calgary …. … [T]he judge correctly characterized this service as that of security, albeit using and indeed consuming in large measure, telecommunications to furnish such service. … The gist of the judgment is that the single service provided by Appellant is not telecommunications but rather security comprised of an ensemble of elements of which telecommunications is one part. ...