Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

Following the investigation, the three accused – Bouclair, its CEO and its Vice-President of Real Estate-- were charged jointly with various ITA tax evasion offences. ... The Court cannot condone such a practice. … Otherwise, the Jarvis protections simply melt away. ... Galiatsatos JCQ further noted that the ARQ auditor had already concluded before even seeing the false invoices that the VP Construction work had not been performed for Bouclair, and stated (at paras 315, 345, and 346): …[T]he … auditor… at that very early stage, had both subjectively [and]… objectively found evidence of tax evasion and set out from that point to build a case to establish the requisite intent, using the compliance audit mechanisms as a means of gathering evidence, even though she never intended the matter to be prosecuted criminally. … If Jarvis precautions had been on RQ’s mind at the relevant times, in my view, the matter would have – and should have – been referred for criminal investigation before even requesting and receiving the VP invoices…. … [B]efore even requesting to see the invoices, the potential for an innocent explanation was far-fetched. … …[T]he Court finds that the applicants’ constitutional rights were violated from the moment the auditor required production of the invoices for the VP Construction expenses. ...

. … Regarding the nature of the segregated fund at issue, I conclude that the overarching feature was the life insurance component. ... The Minister assumed – incorrectly – that the segregated fund belonged in the same category as an RRSP or RRIF. ... Higgins had the right to expect that London Life – upon his death- would abide by its contractual obligation to transfer the residue of said fund to his two daughters in equal shares. ...

Ellis “as partial compensation for the termination of the Group Life Plan” and (at para. 103) that such payment “providing partial compensation the loss of the status of being a member of the Group Life Plan …constituted a benefit,” Sommerfeldt J stated (at paras. 121, 124): As explained by Bowman J in … Tsiaprailis … where, in addition to the general provision in paragraph 6(1)(a), there is “a specific [statutory provision] containing detailed conditions for the inclusion of an amount in income that would not otherwise be income” … the general provision cannot be used “to fill in all the gaps left by” the specific provision…. I have concluded that subsection 6(4) of the ITA and Part XXVII of the ITR are specific provisions designed to include in income certain amounts in respect of insurance coverage under a group term life insurance policy. … As those specific provisions have not captured the distributions paid in 2011 by the HWT to Ms. ...

In rejecting this submission and confirming the Minister’s assessment of Tusk Exploration under Part XII.6, Webb JA stated (at paras 28-29): … [T]he reference to “purports to renounce” in subsection 66(12.73) … is a reference to an amount that the corporation stated in the forms that it filed that it was renouncing and hence an amount that it claimed that it was renouncing. ... Furthermore, since subsection 66(12.73) … refers to both an amount that a corporation “purports to renounce” and to an amount that a corporation “can renounce”, amounts that a corporation “purports to renounce” cannot be restricted to only amounts that it “can renounce”. Because Parliament has chosen to use two different expressions, it must mean that Parliament did not intend for the two expressions to be synonymous. … [P]aragraph 66(12.73)(d) … provides that any reduction in the amounts renounced does not affect the calculation of the amount payable under Part XII.6…. ...

Canada, 2018 FCA 121-- summary under Subsection 66(12.6) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 66- Subsection 66(12.6) only a PBC can renounce In the course of a general discussion, Webb JA stated (at para. 5): Although subsection 66(12.6) of the ITA only refers to a “corporation”, since only a “ principal-business corporation ” can issue a flow-through share (as a result of the definition of flow-through share), only a principal-business corporation can renounce CEE under subsection 66(12.6) of the ITA. ...

I am not convinced and endorse the approach Justice Webb outlined in Sarmadi … repeated in Eisbrenner …. ...

In also intimating that a taxpayer is not to “apply” GAAR, he stated (at para. 16): Although … [Bocock J] states …that “all taxpayers, who are directly subject to GAAR assessments, that is, non-third parties, are required to consider and apply GAAR”, in my view it is more accurate to state that all taxpayers who are contemplating a transaction or series of transactions that would result in a tax benefit should consider the risk that GAAR will apply to deny the tax benefit. ... He also stated (at para. 33): … Simard-Beaudry … confirmed that “the assessment does not create the debt, but is at most a confirmation of its existence”. ...

He argued that since he had established that around ¼ of the payments received by him as cheques from a corporation, with which he did not deal at arm’s length, properly reimbursed him for business expenses, he had demolished the Minister’s “exact” assumption made in assessing him under s. 160 that the taxpayer had “provided no consideration for the cheques.” In rejecting this position, Monaghan JA stated (at para. 21) that the taxpayer “places far too much emphasis on the word ‘exact’ and gives insufficient weight to the word ‘demolish’ in … Hickman. ” and further stated (at para. 24) that “establishing some consideration for the cheques is not sufficient to demolish the Minister’s assumption,” noting in this regard (at para. 25) that the “purpose of pleading the assumption is to provide the appellant with notice of the case the appellant has to meet” and here, the taxpayer knew that, in the context of a s. 160 assessment, he needed to establish that he had provided fair market consideration for the cheques, “not merely some consideration.” ...

Case C‑276/09 …). [I]t is for the referring court to ascertain whether, in the main proceedings, the NEC’s card processing service must be considered for VAT purposes to be a service which is ancillary to the sale of the tickets concerned or as a service ancillary to another principal service which is provided by the NEC to the purchasers of those tickets, which could be the reservation or the delivery of tickets for shows or other events and, therefore, forming with that principal service a single service with the result that that service must share the tax treatment of that principal service (see… Card Protection Plan … Case C‑349/96 …[and] Wojskowa Agencja Mieszkaniowa … Case C-42/14 …). ...

Lussier participated in entertaining activities … including a catamaran expedition …. ... The recreational activities were an opportunity to create or maintain relationships with advisors and brokers. … BMO had no say in BBA's choice of location for its convention, and the fact that it was held outside Quebec does not in any event have an impact on the TA criteria …. [T]he ARQ's … approach is somewhat penalizing and unfair to Mr. Lussier. ...