Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

., an audit adjustment) … the Minister has no ability to refuse the carryback request in these circumstances because a taxpayer has a statutory right to claim a loss carryback by virtue of paragraph 111(1)(a)” (para. 41), Woods JA stated (at para. 42): The Minister has the right to reject a taxpayer’s request for a loss carryback. The point was made in Greene … 95 D.T.C. 5684 … that the Minister only has to consider a request, not necessarily issue a reassessment granting the request. ...

Miller ought to have documented in his records,” that the “requests do not stray into the problematic type of questions identified in Cameco and BP Canada ” e.g., an attempt “ to compel Mr. ... Regarding the required the disclosure of the trust ledger accounts with the law firms, she stated (at para. 59): I do not agree that the Cameco decision establishes that a taxpayer discharges their obligation to satisfy a request that is otherwise within the scope of subsection 231.1(1) with a response that they simply do not have those documents in their possession. … [A] taxpayer is required to exercise reasonable efforts to obtain and provide to the Minister information and documentation that should be in its books and records. ...

Article 168(a) provided: In so far as the goods and services are used for the purposes of the taxed transactions of a taxable person, the taxable person shall be entitled, in the Member State in which he carries out these transactions, to deduct the following from the VAT which he is liable to pay: … the VAT due or paid in that Member State in respect of supplies to him of goods or services, carried out or to be carried out by another taxable person; The Court stated (at paras 33-35): It is clear … that, without the reconstruction of that pump station, it would have been impossible to connect the buildings …to that pump station, with the result that that reconstruction was essential for completing that project and that, consequently, in the absence of such reconstruction, Iberdrola would not have been able to carry out its economic activity. ... The fact that the municipality of Tsarevo also benefits from that service cannot justify the right to deduct corresponding to that service being denied to Iberdrola if the existence of such a direct and immediate link is established …. The Court concluded (at para 41): … Article 168(a) … must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person has the right to deduct input value added tax in respect of a supply of services consisting of the construction or improvement of a property owned by a third party when that third party enjoys the results of those services free of charge and when those services are used both by the taxable person and by the third party in the context of their economic activity, in so far as those services do not exceed that which is necessary to allow that taxable person to carry out the taxable output transactions and where their cost is included in the price of those transactions. ...

He went on to indicate (at para. 49) that in any event, the daughter could be considered to be “subject to tax”: … The income tax legislation … applies to all Canadian residents … because they may, in one year or another, earn business income in Quebec…. ... Before cancelling the reassessments, Cameron JCQ stated (at para 57): …On a direct reading of the text, giving the words their ordinary meaning, … the fact that the student does or does not have to pay a tax in a given year does not have a bearing on the option of the parent using the credit. ... In that light, a generous interpretation should be given, … and the Court should not read in restrictions that are not to be found in the legislator’s choice of the words used and those not used. ...

. … Stewart confirms … that the non-existence of income is not determinative of whether a taxpayer’s activities constitute a source of income. … He certainly could demonstrate better business practices and I note that his record keeping leaves much to be desired but I still conclude that he conducted his activities with a level of commerciality sufficient to constitute a business. ...

The Minister’s position was that LBL sold the tobacco products to such third party customers who were not status Indians, with the MacNaughtons being compensated for their involvement in this scheme through volume rebates – so that such sales were not exempted under s. 87 of the Indian Act. In finding that the MacNaughtons were the "recipients" of the sales as defined in ETA s. 123(1), so that the sales were so exempted, Visser J stated (at paras. 142, 147): [T[he MacNaughtons were the recipients of the supplies of the Tobacco Products during the Periods. … Roberta MacNaughton … entered into an oral agreement with Lumsden to purchase the Tobacco Products from Lumsden, and it was Roberta MacNaughton who was liable under that agreement to pay Lumsden for the Tobacco Products. ...

. … The respondents' contention that the phrase "is presently entitled" should be construed to mean " really is " presently entitled (emphasis added) for that income year, such that, for "a reasonable period" after the end of the income year, later events could subsequently disentitle a beneficiary who was presently entitled immediately before the end of the income year, is rejected. ...

. … [The] food-grade mineral fibre substrate [used] instead of soil … plays the same role as soil …. ...

Arden LJ found (at paras 62, 63, 64 and 65): … The view that a policy may be changed if there is good reason to do so is supported by the judgment of Lord Dyson in WL Congo …, by Elias LJ in Lewisham…, and by Bhatt Murphy…. … As Bingham LJ put it in MFK, the taxpayer's only legitimate expectation is that he will be taxed according to statute, not concession or a wrong view of the law…. … In the present case taxpayers with Mansworth v Jelley losses were not in the same position if they were in open years as opposed to closed years. ... Arden LJ further found (at paras 72, 73, and 85): … [T]he question is whether or not there has been sufficient unfairness to prevent correction of the mistake. It is clear from the authorities that the unfairness has to reach a very high level: see, in particular, the holding of Simon Brown LJ in Unilever where he held that it … had to be outrageously or conspicuously unfair. … Arden LJ allowed HMRC’s appeal and dismissed the taxpayer’s notice, finding (at para 90): … [T]he respondent has to show conspicuous unfairness. … I consider that this is not shown…. ...

Reasons that “simply repeat statutory language, summarize arguments made, and then state a peremptory conclusion” will rarely assist a reviewing court in understanding the rationale underlying a decision and “are no substitute for statements of fact, analysis, inference and judgment” …. ... It cannot adopt an interpretation it knows to be inferior — albeit plausible — merely because the interpretation in question appears to be available and is expedient. ... Rather than confirming a meaningful presumption of deference for administrative decision-makers … the majority’s reasons strip away deference from hundreds of administrative actors subject to statutory rights of appeal; rather than following the consistent path of this Court’s jurisprudence in understanding legislative intent as being the intention to leave legal questions within their mandate to specialized decision-makers with expertise, the majority removes expertise from the equation entirely and reformulates legislative intent as an overriding intention to provide — or not provide — appeal routes; and rather than clarifying the role of reasons and how to review them, the majority revives the kind of search for errors that dominated the pre- C.U.P.E. era. ...