Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 356-- summary under Rule 303 Summary Under Tax Topics- Other Legislation/Constitution- Federal- Federal Courts Rules- Rule 303 respondent changed from CRA to AGC Before ordering that the respondent be changed from the CRA to the Attorney General of Canada (AGC), Southcott J stated (at paras. 24-25): As the Respondent submits, Rules 303(1) and (2) of the Federal Courts Rules … provide that, where an application does not directly affect another person other than a tribunal in respect of which the application is brought, the application shall name the AGC as a respondent. As CRA is effectively the tribunal in respect of which the application is brought, the Respondent takes the position that the appropriate respondent is the AGC. … I agree with the Respondent’s analysis …. ...

Respecting ITA s. 159, Little J stated (at paras 53, 54): … Parliament could have chosen to make all beneficiaries of the estate liable as well but chose not to do so. … [T]hat is sensible – the beneficiaries have no control over when or how much is distributed. Presumably for similar reasons, Parliament chose not to deal with whether a legal representative could seek indemnity from beneficiaries. … Little J further found that the Respondents were under no obligation to indemnify the Applicant for any income tax or penalties imposed on the Applicant as a result of her failure to obtain a clearance certificate before distributing the estate, stating (at paras 61-63): … Ms. ...

. … Chopp confirmed… that a benefit may be conferred without any intent or actual knowledge on the part of the shareholder if the circumstances are such that the shareholder ought to have known. … The purchase of policies … for which significant premiums were paid and for which there were several changes to the beneficiaries over several years, is not and cannot be treated as a simple bookkeeping error. ...

In rejecting this claim, Russel J stated (at paras. 12-14): CIBC World Markets [2012 FCA 3] … affirmed that the Minister of National Revenue can only assess tax consistent with his/her view of the underlying facts and law. … Here, DTI’s settlement offer … was simply a “let’s split it down the middle” settlement offer. ...

Ghumman, in computing his income from employment …, to deduct the commissions received by GFP in respect of the Policy. … According to the principle enunciated in Bilodeau, if the CRA decides, for whatever reason, not to extend [its] administrative policy … to a particular taxpayer, the taxpayer cannot expect this Court to require the CRA to comply with its administrative policy in a situation where that policy is not consistent with the ITA. Sommerfeldt J went on to find that CRA’s expressed policy was in any event inapplicable here, stating (at para. 18): [T] hat policy… applies where the individual who acquires a life insurance policy and who pays the premiums … is the person who receives the commissions. … [I]t was Mr. ...

Green’s adaptive functioning … is an exercise in assessing whether her mental illness markedly impacts her adaptive functioning as an overall matter. ... … I am satisfied … that it does and that, at least since 2015, it has done so all, or substantially all, of the time. ... Green in coping with her anxieties, but has led to other problems, such as failing school, loss of employment, self-harm activities, reluctance to pursue therapy, and taking on too many projects. … ...

. … [T]he Assistant Commissioner … [also] simply stated the principle that errors or omissions by tax professionals “are not considered extenuating circumstances for the purpose of remission” and then treated it as a complete answer to the applicant’s submission. … Given the importance to the applicant’s request of the question of whether any errors or omissions by the tax professionals who assisted the applicant could constitute an extenuating circumstance or, more broadly, made it unreasonable or unjust to recover the 2005/2006 debt, it was essential that the Assistant Commissioner explain why he concluded that they did not. … [I]t is insufficient to simply state the rule without also explaining why an exception should not be made in this case. ...

Before setting aside and remitted to the Minister for redetermination, Walker J stated (at para. 63): … The Minister’s delegate … imports equitable requirements specific to rectification and rescission without acknowledging any difference in the remedies sought. … They requested only the amendment of the Original Elections, as contemplated in subsection 85(7.1). The Minister’s delegate erred when he stated, “[y]our request is similar to the request Canada Life put forward, in which [the] ONCA said, ‘The court cannot substitute one series of transactions for another to avoid an unintended tax result’”. … ...

. … So long as the business is one that may be “carried on” (i.e., not an “adventure in the nature of trade”) all businesses — without statutory exception — fall within the scope of subsection 146.2(6) of the Act, including a business of trading qualified investments. ... It had already done so in the context of a different statutory scheme when it amended the RRSP legislation in 1993 to make such an exception for RRSPs. … As directed by Mr. ...

The taxpayer acknowledged that the related expenses claimed by him did not qualify under the terms of the adoption tax credit (“AETC”) provided under s. 118.01, but argued that he was entitled to the credit because s. 118.01 infringed his equality rights under s. 15 of the Charter – and submitted that the remedy should be the expansion of the AETC to cover his claimed expenses. ... Hogan further stated (at paras. 22, 30 and 34): [T]he Appellant’s claim also fails because limiting the AETC to adoption-related expenses does not perpetuate or exacerbate any preexisting disadvantage or prejudice within the meaning of section 15 of the Charter. … The AETC was tailored to cover adoption expenses because Parliament simply wanted to encourage domestic and international adoptions in the interest of vulnerable children. … [T]he inclusion of surrogacy expenses … is inconsistent with the raison d’être of the AETC designed to promote adoptions. … [I]n the event the AETC does create a distinction on an analogous ground, the distinction is not discriminatory because the AETC has an ameliorative purpose that specifically targets a disadvantaged group identified by the analogous ground. ...