Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

McCann were not received by them on account of the death benefits that they were entitled to receive, I am of the view that those distributions were received by them instead of, in place of, or in lieu of, those death benefits, so as to come within the statutory phrase “any amount received … in lieu of payment of, … a death benefit.” ...

This was accomplished by setting up a sandwich structure immediately after the acquisition, under which a new Canadian unlimited liability company, capitalized with notes and high-PUC shares, held the shares of a U.S. corporation holding Univar Canada – so that such U.S. corporation could distribute the shares of Univar Canada (on a Treaty-exempt basis) to its controlling Canadian purchaser (the ULC) without technically being affected by the s. 212.1(1) deemed dividend rule. ... Thus … the purpose of section 212.1 … was not to prevent the removal from Canada, by an arm’s length purchaser of a Canadian corporation, of any surplus that such Canadian corporation had accumulated prior to the acquisition of control. ... Whether the surplus of the Canadian corporation is removed by completing the alternative transactions described … above or by completing the transactions that were done in this case, the same surplus is removed from Canada. ...

. … We have to confirm that … there are no circumstances that would support the cancellation of the tax on excess TFSA contributions. ... Sangha’s circumstances. … [T]he Decision was not reasonable. I find that the Decision does not reflect a coherent assessment of the relevant law and significant facts and submissions from the record and that the Minister’s refusal to exercise their discretion was not intelligible or justified. ... The guidance in Vavilov makes clear the importance of looking to the reasons given by an administrative decision maker and warns the reviewing court against providing supplemental reasons to buttress the result in the decision in question …. ...

…[S]ection 168 provides that: Tax … is payable by the recipient on … the day the consideration for the supply becomes due. ...

See summaries under s. 9 – timing, s. 12(1)(x), and s. 9 – compensation payments. ...

The Crown relies on the distinction drawn in this publication between remedial amendments and clarifying amendments and emphasizes the assertion that in this case the amendments “clarify” the prior law (… Economic Action Plan 2012, pp. 414-415 ….) ...

In finding that the letter agreement was described by the preamble of the “restrictive covenant” definition, Smith J stated (at para 58): [T]he preamble of the Letter Agreement provides that the Appellant “proposes to, concurrently with the entering into of this letter agreement (…) enter into a share purchase agreement (…)”. ...

. … He played poker non-recreationally for the purpose of making a profit. He organized his life around poker. … The appellant's poker playing activities were his main source of income during the years in dispute. … [T]he Appellant spent almost all of his time playing poker. An analysis of FullTiltPoker and PokerStars records revealed that the Appellant frequented these online poker sites on a near-daily basis and frequented one of the two gambling sites, often both sites, for … an average of 274 days per year. … Despite his unusual lifestyle and his propensity for always wanting to play at the high-stakes tables, the appellant was a serious businessman. … He avoided playing against certain opponents and he adjusted his play to his bankroll to avoid overly perilous situations. ...

Thus, Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Murry explained that "the legal right or privilege to conduct a business in substantially the same manner and by substantially the same means which in the past have attracted custom to the business" is recognised as "property" – traditionally described as "goodwill" – which can be conveyed by a seller to a purchaser, so as to remain the property of the purchaser within the protection of the law for so long as the purchaser in fact conducts substantially the same business in substantially the same manner. ...

. … Moreover, a close reading of section 225(4)(c) … permits the input tax credit claims to be filed no matter how late the HST may be charged in connection with the subject transaction(s), provided that the HST was not originally charged by the vendor/supplier and the CRA has subsequently assessed the vendor/supplier for that outstanding HST. … ...