Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

. … The taxpayer must show that the debt in issue was included in his income for the year the deduction is claimed or for a preceding taxation year. ... Hokhold … do not identify any particular debts owing. She has simply aggregated what she believes to have been the total receipts of the practice annually over a four year period and deducted that amount from the total revenue reported by the Appellant in order to compute the bad debt claim. … The word “debt” … has been judicially defined … as “a sum payable in respect of a liquidated money demand, recoverable by action”: Diewold v. ... …[T]here is simply no way of assessing the accuracy of the amount claimed in the absence of the business records from the Appellant’s practice. … Even if the Appellant had proved the existence of the debts, I would have been unable to conclude what part, if any, of those debts went bad in 2008. … Paragraph 20(1)(p) … only allows for a deduction in the year during which the debt goes bad. … ...

Gains and losses arising from hedging derivative contracts take on the character of the underlying asset, liability or transaction being hedged …. ... Purpose is ascertained objectively (Ludco …). … As the cases demonstrate, the primary source of ascertaining a derivative contract’s purpose is the linkage between the derivative contract and any underlying asset, liability or transaction purportedly hedged. ...

. … … I appreciate the Appellant would remain a “registrant” within the meaning of the law, in respect of any business activity conducted in the field of technology and manufacturing, in association with Varx Technology Incorporated or its predecessor sole proprietorship. ... [The taxpayer] at best was a “registrant” in name only but not so, within the meaning of the law, insofar as we are concerned in these circumstances. … I find it hard to reconcile the notion that somehow a GST/HST registration number could survive the dissolution of its assigned holder. ...

The Queen, 2021 TCC 63, aff'd on different grounds 2024 FCA 3-- summary under Compensation Payments Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 9- Compensation Payments a break fee was income from a business An integrated nickel-mining public company (“Falconbridge” – a predecessor of the taxpayer), entered into merger agreements with a more junior public company (“DFR”) which, through a 75%-owned subsidiary, held a valuable nickel-copper-cobalt deposit at Voisey’s Bay in Newfoundland. ... In fact, another public company (“Inco” – the 25% minority shareholder) made a subsequent offer that was accepted by DFR, thereby triggering the payment by it of the break fee. ... Falconbridge was carrying on its business when it negotiated the Merger … Agreement[s], both of which provided for the fees in dispute. … The … Fees were ancillary business income received by Falconbridge in the course of earning income from business. ...

. … [Furthermore] … a specified person is not allowed to raise an issue in its Notice of Appeal, unless the issue was first raised in its Notice of Objection. ...

Saunders J went on to state (at para. 39): … Leong … held that a purchaser’s liability in such claims is limited to the GST amount only, as “penalty and interest liabilities only exist because of the vendor’s failure to collect and remit the GST, and not because of the purchaser’s failure to pay it” (quoting Len’s Construction at p. 6115). ... Thereafter, however, the additional interest that accumulated was due not only to the Plaintiffs’ conduct, but also to the Defendant’s failure to pay a demand that had been properly made. … The Defendant will therefore be liable for the additional interest charges ultimately paid by the Plaintiffs…. ...

In the Court of Appeal, Stratas JA stated (at para. 3) that “ Oceanspan is … directly on point … [and] binds us, just as it bound the Tax Court.” ... Those reasons noted (at para. 39) that a “good example of when section 250.1 operates is subsection 104(13) … [which] may apply to a resident beneficiary of a non-resident trust.” ...

. … Denison Mines … [stated] that " the fact that a capital asset, in the sense of an enduring benefit resulting, does not necessarily make the expenditures expended therefor capital expenditures rather than revenue expenditures.” This is … all the more true in matters of eligible capital property and intangible assets where, with the commercial structure in place, sums are committed on a recurring basis in order to maintain the profitable pursuit of activities: Canada Starch …. ...

First, and most importantly, it is uncertain whether the chargeable event – redemption of a credit by viewing or downloading a document- will ever occur. … Secondly, it is not clear when redemption will occur, and by that time a number of features of the service might have changed. … [T]he possibility that the available documents might have changed appears to be a real one. ... [T]he elements of uncertainty… are sufficiently important to exclude the application of the prepayment rules contained in section 6(4) … and article 65.... of the Principal VAT Directive. If a prepayment is to be chargeable to VAT, it must relate to a particular supply of goods or services, with a direct link between the goods or services and the consideration paid in advance. … [W]e are of the opinion that the uncertainties in the present case are so material that the payment made when PAYG credits are purchased cannot be considered a prepayment towards the cost of any particular search. … … The supply is the viewing and downloading of documents, but it cannot be known at the time when the payment is made how many credits will actually be used and how many will remain unredeemed. ...

The Centre promptly commenced this application in the FCA under s. 168(2)(b) of the Act and Rule 300(b) of the Federal Courts Rules for an order prohibiting publication of a copy of the notice of intention to revoke – and thus prohibiting the revocation itself – until a later date based on the timing of when the Minister has disposed of its objection to the notice. In dismissing the application for this order, Laskin JA stated (at paras 15, 18- 20): It is a long-established principle that irreparable harm cannot be inferred, but must be established by clear and compelling evidence … [T]he evidence … does not meet the required standard [of irreparable harm]. ... The evidence that significant numbers of parents would withdraw their children from the school within one or two months is also neither clear nor compelling. … While the Centre asserts that “[t]he loss of tuition revenue and the reduction of the donor base for School related fundraising will make ABCO financially incapable of operating the School, leading to its closure,” it has not …provided its current budget or other supporting financial information. … Its financial statements for 2016 also show an excess of revenues over expenditures of $307,242. … …[T]he evidence is in our view insufficient to establish irreparable harm. ...