Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

. … [C]ertainty is an essential ingredient. … [U]nless the agreement is contrary to public order, the contract is valid and binding. ...

Canada, 2019 FCA 5-- summary under Subsection 169(2.2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 169- Subsection 169(2.2) taxpayers had given valid waivers given full knowledge of the rights which they had unequivocably waived Rossiter CJ had found that the taxpayers had given valid waivers of their right to appeal: even though the waiver letter drafted by CRA was “poorly worded … if read in its entirety … there is a sufficient and adequate explanation in the letter [such] that a person would have full knowledge of the rights being waived.” ...

., they were addressed to them personally, and stated inter alia: Your personal income tax returns and any other related or associated entities have been selected for audit …. [Y]ou may have offshore holdings that you have failed to disclose …. In order to expedite and facilitate our audit, we will require a clear understanding of all entities with which you had a connection or affiliation during the taxation years noted above. … Please send us back the attached questionnaire fully completed within 30 days …. ...

[B]ecause language rights are not procedural rights, the fact that a violation has had no impact on the fairness of the hearing is in principle not relevant to the remedy …. Indeed, even 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 … because such a violation deprives one party of the possibility of having access to Canadian justice in the official language of his or her choice. … A judge's failure to take the rights of the persons before him or her into account constitutes both an error of law and a denial of natural justice independently of the quality of his or her judgment and the absence of substantive errors. 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. ...

In finding that the taxpayer’s statement of claim should be struck, Woods JA applied the principle that even “if … a party is a stranger to a transaction, the transaction must still be described with sufficient detail that the other party can identify it” (para. 80) and noted, regarding the taxpayer’s allegation (para. 76) that the Audit Division shared information gathered from the requirement letters with criminal investigators, that “the statement of claim did not identify with particularity any criminal investigation into the Respondent” (para. 82) and that the “pleading does not link the alleged sharing of information to any particular criminal investigation” (para. 83). Furthermore, although a general statement of the Minister suggested “that audits may precede criminal investigations … this is permitted in Jarvis ” (para. 72). ...

Moreover, it has still not reassessed … Mr. Prince. In the alternative, … if the letter of December 17, 2018 was, in effect, a decision that the CRA was reassessing the Applicant, then the Federal Court would be denied jurisdiction by the effect of section 18.5 of the FCA due to the availability of an appeal of the decision. … Either way, I do not have jurisdiction. ...

After the assessment was vacated pursuant to a consent judgment, CRA issued a Notice of Reassessment showing the cancellation of the penalty and a refund of the $1M but denying any refund interest on the basis that s. 164(3) requires a taxation year to be specified in order for interest to be paid – and a s. 163.2 penalty is not calculated by reference to any particular taxation years. ... The onus, however, cannot be on the taxpayer to identify which taxation year(s) ‑ whether any, some or none ‑ apply to the Minister’s penalty assessment, particularly when, as here, the Reassessment itself indicates a taxation year on its face. ...

I also conclude … that these expenses were reasonable. … [T]he Appellant testified that after he paid for a room, he had approximately $20 to $30 remaining for meals per day and that, on many occasions, he had to personally subsidize the cost of his food. … I see no reason why the term “travel expenses” cannot be interpreted to include these meal expenses, when they are reasonable and provided at the remote work location. ...

. … [T]he error was obvious and … if Mr. Tremblay and Mr. Forest [the CEO and CFO] had checked the return, they would certainly have detected the error since they were both CPAs and it was fairly straightforward to ensure that the dividends were included. … In my view, the failure to review the appellant's income tax return and the failure to question the accountant to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in the return demonstrate a lack of due diligence on the part of the appellant's officers. ...

KPMG LLP, 2016 FC 1322-- summary under Subsection 231.2(3) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 231.2- Subsection 231.2(3) s. 231.2(3) overrode CPA duty of client confidence KPMG LLP sought to quash an order of Noël J- that authorized the Minister to impose on KMPG a requirement pursuant to s. 231.2(3) to disclose confidential information relating to certain of its unnamed clients relating to their participation in a tax structure known as the Offshore Company Structure – on the grounds that Rule 208 of the Ontario Code of Professional Conduct for CPAs (and similar rules in other provinces) provided that “a member or firm shall not disclose any confidential information concerning the affairs of any client [or] former client….” After noting (at para 7) that there was a listed exception from this rule where “such information is required to be disclosed by order of lawful authority,” and before dismissing the motion, Crampton CJ stated (at para 9): In my view, the language of s. 231.2(3) of the Act is clear and overrides the general confidentiality rule imposed by Rule 208 of the Code. … [C]ancelling or varying Justice Noël’s Order … would appear to be inconsistent with Parliament’s intent in enacting s. 231.2 (R. v. ...