Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

She did not purchase any furniture or furnishings to fit out the units she occupied, choosing to rent furnished spaces …. … Finally, the evidence established that Ms. ...

Shore J concluded that the decision was reasonable, stating (at paras 20, 21, 23, 24): … [T]he CRA could not simply add NCLs to a specific taxation year without a request from the taxpayer. … … [T]he Applicant simply waited for the uncertainty regarding its balance to be resolved. ... This decision is just as valid and reasonable. … [T]he Minister did in fact … provide relief for a certain portion of the interest accrued due to the CRA’s own omission. ... Shore J also concluded that the Minister did not breach procedural fairness, stating (at para 33 and 34): … [I]f the Applicant wanted the Minister’s delegate to read the Manual prior to rendering his decision, the Applicant should have specifically mentioned the Manual. … [T]he Minister’s delegates responsible for tax relief do not necessarily have experience in audit. ...

ITA 231.2(3) and ETA s. 289(3) for Roofmart to disclose various particulars for all of its customers who in the past 4 ½ years had made purchases of construction materials from Roofmart exceeding $20,000 or $10,000 per annum, depending on the year. ... The statutory criteria are not altered by the size of the request. … … The existence of some customers who may be of no interest to the Minister for the purposes of verifying compliance cannot determine whether an order should issue. ... That the group in this case is ascertainable is a finding of mixed fact and law, and the appellant has demonstrated no error that would warrant interference He also stated (at paras 45): GMREB established that a pending or existing tax audit of a particular individual is not a precondition to the exercise of power under subsection 231.2(3) …. ...

On January 4, 2011, the taxpayer filed a Notice of Appeal respecting losses from the Sierra Trinity transactions – but due to an error, also disputed the disallowance of the Trinity Denton losses (because new counsel were unaware of the 1994 settlement). ... In finding that the taxpayer’s appeal to the Tax Court did not constitute an “acknowledgement” of her 1988 tax liability so as to restart the running of the CLP under ss. 222(5) and (6)(b), Strickland J stated (at paras. 66-67, 76): It would … be absurd if the limitation period could be both restarted by the filing of an appeal to the Tax Court pursuant to s 222(5)(a) and (6)(b) and, at the same time, also be extended pursuant to s 222(8). This could have the result of two different limitation periods running with respect to the same matter. … [T]he Minister’s general conclusionary statement that filing an appeal with the Tax Court is an acknowledgement of debt, thereby restarting the limitation period, is not justified, intelligible or transparent and is unreasonable …. … [T]he plain meaning of “acknowledgment” requires an admission or confirmation by the person making the acknowledgment of the thing alleged, be it an admission of liability for damages, blame, responsibility or liability for a tax debt. ...

. … The jurisprudence is clear (and abundant) that courts should not decide constitutional cases in a factual vacuum. … … [L]egislation which, on its face, contains Charter violations may yet be found to be constitutional on the basis of contextual facts and the balancing of interests pursuant to section 1 of the Charter. … In the present case, there are no facts in support of the Friedmans’ constitutional arguments; there are merely hypothetical possibilities which may or may not arise. … [I]t was conceded that there was no basis for alleging a disguised criminal investigation. ...

. … [D]espite the usual meaning associated with the expression "housing unit", it should not be construed as preventing a person from benefiting from the full tax exemption respecting a capital gain realized on the disposition of a building that includes more than one unit, if in fact the individual has lived in the entire building. ... The three of them lived together and even when she or her son had friends over, it was no different. … Her bedroom was upstairs and the bathroom that she mainly used also was upstairs. The two floors were connected by two staircases …. [T]he only difference from another two-storey single-family home was that the building had two kitchens, one on each level, and was originally divided so that it housed two units. … … Why should it be necessary to demolish the kitchen on the first floor, and why should the building have only one kitchen, so that it could qualify as a principal residence? ...

Colitto’s liability arose pursuant to section 227.1 of the Act in his 2011 taxation year and was not in respect of his 2008 taxation year. … Subsection 227.1(2) of the Act provides that a “director is not liable under subsection (1), unless” the preconditions set out in subsection 227.1(2) have been satisfied. … Furthermore, contextually, when comparing the language of subsection 227.1(2) and 227.1(4) of the Act, the interpretation that subsection 227.1(2) is a timing provision is confirmed. ... In my view, to be able to trace a corporation’s liability to its director under section 227.1 and then ultimately to the director’s spouse under section 160 is an extraordinary remedy, and one that should only be applied if expressly permitted by law. … I will not follow … Pliskow, Sheck, White No.1 and Filippazzo [finding that the s. 227.1 liability arises at the time of the failure of the corporation to remit rather than when the subsequent collection steps to collect that corporate liability have failed]. It is not apparent that these cases engaged in a textual, contextual and purposive interpretation of how sections 160 and 227.1 of the Act should interact with each other. … … The mere fact that Precision’s failure occurred within the 2008 calendar year which coincides with Mr. ...

This follows as a matter of contract from the fact that PepsiCo and SVC were the parties to the EBAs and SAPL’s payment obligations under the EBAs were owed to them. … PepsiCo and SVC nominated PBS to be the seller of the concentrate under the EBAs for the relevant years. ... In these circumstances, the relevant portions of those payments (being the portions that were consideration for the use of, or the right to use, the relevant items) “came home” to PepsiCo/SVC … by being applied as they directed. The relevant portions were therefore income derived by PepsiCo/SVC. … Further, in the circumstances, PepsiCo and SVC … were entitled to receive the payments under the EBAs and directed SAPL to pay PBS. ...

In dismissing the appeal, he stated (at paras 72 and 73): …The Appellant’s apportionment between exempt and zero-rated was done on a global basis. … [S]ection 2 is a very unique section under which an apportionment happens within a given supply on an object-by-object basis. ... I would have found the fact that the vehicles were all insured using the standard insurance terms for Ontario vehicles to be a relevant factor. … … I would have considered …relevant … the jurisdiction in which the owners of the fleets were based; the location where regular maintenance on the vehicles was conducted; the jurisdiction in which the drivers were licensed; and the location where the vehicles were kept when not in use. I may also have considered the reason why the vehicles left Canada. … Words and Phrases risks ordinarily situated ...

After stating (at para. 44) that “subsection 256(5.1)… makes it clear that control in fact is based on the ability to exercise direct or indirect influence” and that “ McGillivray confirms that the influence must be exercisable, directly or indirectly, against the voting shareholders of the corporation,” Hogan J went on to find that Mr Silva had de facto control of the taxpayer, stating (at paras 49, 50, 56 and 61): It was entirely dependent on the cash flow provided to it by Seawind Corp. under the Development Agreement to fund the Certification Expenses. ... Silva, who controlled both parties when the agreement was entered into. … … [I]t is hard to conceive that the Canadian Resident Shareholders would have exercised their voting rights independently of Mr. ... The fact that the Canadian Resident Shareholders were either employees of the Appellant or entities wholly owned by employees of the Appellant reinforces this conclusion. … [I]t is not hard for me to imagine that Mr. ...