Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

It follows that excluding an instrument from the ambit of the word debt simply because the amount which can ultimately be claimed will only be known when the term expires would effectively mean that Parliament has spoken in vain in providing for a “debt […] that may reasonably be considered to derive its value […] from portfolio investments”. [S]ubsection 94.1(1) … contemplates in express terms that an instrument that derives its value from fluctuating portfolio investments can be a debt. ... As these three conditions are present here—i.e. there was a USD 498 million advance made to each of the issuing banks, a resulting obligation on the part of the issuing banks to repay an amount equal to the value of the Reference Assets at maturity or upon early termination, and this amount was ascertainable with precision at the due date- this suffices to dispose of the appeal …. ...

A subsequent settlement agreement provided for the reinstatement of much of the losses, did not explicitly address the treatment of the gains – but referenced an ability of CRA to reassess to make “consequential adjustments.” ... The taxpayer also submitted that s. 152(5) prohibited the implementing reassessment from including the 1998 net gains allocations in his income because, although such income had been included in the initial (pre- 2002) assessment of his 1998 return, such initial assessment was not a reassessment “made … before the end of the [normal reassessment] period” because such quoted language "refers to only the particular …assessment, reassessment or additional assessment that is valid as of the end of the normal reassessment period” – whereas here, the 2002 reassessment had nullified the initial assessment. ... Savics was reassessed in 2002, the initial assessment … was still an assessment that was made before the end of his normal reassessment period. … [T]he Minister is precluded from including a new amount in computing a taxpayer’s income that had not been previously disclosed in relation to an assessment, reassessment or additional assessment made during that taxpayer’s normal reassessment period. … I do not accept that the purpose of subsection 152(5) … is to prevent the Minister, in reassessing a taxpayer under subsection 165(3) … from restoring a taxpayer to their original filing position by reinstating a particular source and amount of income that had been reported by the taxpayer, assessed as filed, and then subsequently deleted as a result of a reassessment. ...

. … [T]he judge contrasted “auditing” and “investigation” … without noting that the audit powers themselves constitute powers of investigation, and without pausing to determine if the objective of the steps she described was to establish penal liability of the respondents. ...

However, she went on to find (at para. 34): … I need not address the Crown’s … argument that the Application should be struck because it is out of time. ...

Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 1014, aff'd 2021 FCA 189-- summary under Subsection 141.01(5) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 141.01- Subsection 141.01(5) flexibility in choice of ITC allocation method for non-FIs Before turning to s. 141.02 and finding that the Minister had reasonably rejected the registrant’s proposed allocation method presented under s. 141.01(18), Walker J stated (at para. 14): The ETA does not require a specific allocation method or the use of specific accounting systems that would separate each property or service that a business uses in its provision of taxable and exempt supplies (Magog … 2001 FCA 210 at para 17 …). ...

. … The appellant also argues that he was denied procedural fairness because he legitimately and reasonably expected that he would be provided the same process considerations as the successful SDL Optics employees. … I disagree. The doctrine of legitimate expectation permits a court to grant appropriate procedural remedies – it cannot give rise to substantive rights. … The decision-maker reasonably found that the appellant’s circumstances were not similar to employees of SDL Optics. … The decision-maker reasonably concluded that …there were no extenuating circumstances as required by the [Canada Revenue Agency Remission Guide] guidelines. … The decisions to exercise the option to purchase the ZCL shares and to hold those shares were within the appellant’s control. ...

BLP Group … held that to take out a loan does not involve a VATable transaction by the borrower at all, even if he pays interest: he is the mere recipient of a service provided by the lender…. ... Article 135 PVD provides that member states must exempt … "(b) the granting and the negotiation of credit and the management of credit by the person granting it;" and "(d) transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit and current accounts, payments, transfers, debts, cheques and other negotiable instruments, but excluding debt collection;…". ... She specifically held that the banking services were not peripheral to its deposit-taking business. … She concluded (at para 61): … I would dismiss this appeal. ...

Before affirming the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal ordering a new hearing before a different judge in response to these violations of the witness’s and counsel’s language rights under s. 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, s. 19 of the Charter and ss. 14 and 15 of the Official Languages Act, Gascon and Côté JJ stated (at paras. 46, 48, 64 and 78): [E]ven if there was no error in the decision on the merits, the language rights in question would be compromised if no remedy was granted … [A] new hearing will generally be an appropriate remedy for most language rights violations. … The judge’s insistence that [Industrial’s counsel] speak English during most of his argument constitutes a flagrant violation of the lawyer’s language rights. … [T]he order for a new hearing was fully justified. … The violations were numerous and, in some cases, serious and repeated, and they brought the administration of justice into disrepute. ...

Before reversing the decision below that the masters were Class 8(j) tangible capital property, and in effectively confirming the ARQ position that they instead were eligible capital property (now Class 14.1) property, Schrager JA referenced s. 18 of the Copyright Act, which provided that “the maker of a sound recording has a copyright in the sound recording, consisting of the sole right to … [inter alia] reproduce it in any material form,” and then stated (at para. 31): There are intangible rights … as described in section 18 … which were purchased in association with the physical tapes. ... The value is found in what is recorded on the plastic or cellulose and what Respondent can do with it – i.e. make and sell good quality copies, albeit subject to respect of the composers and publishers copyrights by the payment of royalties. ...

. … There is no evidence that the Applicant was intentionally neglecting or avoiding its responsibility to maintain proper records. ... …[T]he Delegate made the statement that “the taxpayer did not demonstrate that sufficient action was taken to remedy this situation within a reasonable timeframe as returns continued to remain outstanding until 2012” without clarification of what “sufficient action” was expected, and what “reasonable timeframe” was expected. … I find that the statement constitutes the delivery of a punishment to the Applicant for perceived failure to meet the Delegate’s unclear expectations. … [N]o argument was presented … that the finding is supportable in fact or law. ...