Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

. … S ilicon Graphics … is met. BWS had de facto control of Vidabode. ...

In finding that the Minister’s discretionary decision to not accept the late-filed RC4616 was reasonable, Zinn J stated (at paras 40, 42, 43 and 44): … [T]here is no evidence supporting the submission that the [January 1, 2016] date was placed there in error. … [T]he form filed in February 2016 was not a “late-filed election” as is suggested. It was a timely election filed in February 2016, the month following the January 2016 GST/HST reporting period of the Denso Companies and was stated to be effective January 1, 2016. … Denso Companies… admitted that they “were not aware of the new RC4616 regulation.” … The 2015 amendments were … referenced in a number of CRA publications and in the statute itself. ... It was open to the Minister to conclude, as was done, that the Denso Companies had not taken adequate precautions to keep abreast of their compliance obligations, actions that amount to carelessness and negligence. … ...

. … A repo with a reasonable return in the form of dividends does not defeat the OSP [object, spirit and purpose] of Section 127.6. … KQI is taking advantage of … a mismatch between the tax treatment of its income (the dividends from Kone US are not taxable because they are paid out of its exempt surplus) and its expense (the interest in pays to Kone Canada is deductible). … However, the mismatch arises from the Taxation Act and the policies underlying it …. ...

In finding that s. 231.2(3)(a) was not satisfied, he stated (at paras. 78, 98, TaxInterpretations translation): Where the group is generic without a link to the ITA, and where one can require information without a link to the ITA (as in the case of the commercial customers of a public utility), there is no limitation on a fishing expedition … The invasion of the private life, the right to not be importuned by the state … is not restricted. … The plaintiff has indiscriminately created a group which has no actual factual foundation respecting the administration or enforcement of the ITA for that group. ...

After noting (at para. 9) that the applicant had not demonstrated that “the respondents in fact agreed to not raise reassessments for tax years prior to the tax years in question in the applicant’s voluntary disclosure,” and in rejecting the applicant’s application for an injunction prohibiting the Minister from issuing the proposed reassessments, Martineau J stated (at para 10): [A]s this is a question of the possible merits of a prohibition to prevent the exercise of discretion that is clearly assigned to the Minister by the ITA — that of issuing a reassessment — it must be noted that the applicant was unable to cite any specific jurisprudence in this regard, and even less so for a motion for an interlocutory injunction aimed at suspending, to the sole benefit of the applicant, the application of a law of general application such as the ITA, the constitutionality of which is not in question. After further noting that, under ss. 165(3) and 171, the Tax Court had the power to cancel an assessment, he stated (at para. 13): …The public interest — i.e. the orderly application of the ITA — takes precedence here over the financial and other inconveniences that the applicant may face by having, like all taxpayers, to follow the normal challenge procedure set out in the ITA. ...

Once the minimum amount of $100,000 had been reached — no matter how calculated — then amounts received by Mr. ... Brosseau's deal essentially was a minimum plus an override, not unusual, and not unreasonable — but a distinction with a tax difference as I see it. I do not reach this conclusion on the excess $25,072 without some reservation — since I see some merit in the concise argument of counsel for the appellant on the point — that since the first $100,000 did not come from "use or production", why the second $25,072? ...

. … [T]he Administration Fee was charged on a one-time only basis and would only be charged if a Loan was not repaid within the specific time frame. ... However, after stating (at para. 22) that he accepted the conclusion in Sherway Centre that “an amount paid as compensation for the use of money for a stipulated period can be said to accrue day-to-day,” McEwen J found that the Discount Fee constituted interest, stating (at para. 45): … [I]t is my view … the Discount Fee meets the three … elements of interest: it is consideration or compensation for the use or retention of money owed to ClearFlow; it related to the principal amount; and, it accrued over time (literally day-to-day). ... In this regard, he stated (at para. 53): Formulas can be confusing and even misleading. … The requirement of an express statement does away with this type of dispute and uncertainty, particularly where in this case there are multiple loans, which may roll-over. ...

See summary under s. 9 – capital gain v. profit – real estate. ...

(r.4), partly on the basis of its “Marketing Agreement” with Elavon stating that it would “market” merchant services offered by Elavon – but Lyons J accepted evidence that Zomaron did not carry out such marketing services. ... After having referred (at para. 94) to a statement in the 1989 GST/HST technical paper of Finance that “the services provided by insurance agents, mortgage brokers and investment dealers will be treated as tax-exempt supplies,” she stated (at para. 97) that nonetheless: Parliament intended that the concept of “arranging for” to mean “bringing together parties to a service.”. … Additionally, it … call[s] for the intermediary to have a sufficient amount of involvement to then “cause to occur” or effect the financial service without involvement in every transaction. ... This, I find, is the predominant element of the supply provided by Zomaron to Elavon and First Data. … Even if the supply provided by Zomaron to the Processors involved services of a promotional nature, since these do not represent the predominant element of the supply, paragraph (r.4) has no application …. ...

…It would be incoherent — and indeed, unjust — for shareholders to benefit from limited liability while at the same time gaining a right of action in relation to faults committed against the corporation in which they hold shares…. The corporate veil is impermeable on both sides; just as shareholders cannot be liable for faults committed by the corporation, so too are they barred from seeking damages for faults committed against it …. ...