Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

Before confirming the decision below to dismiss the application, LeBlanc JA found: Regarding the stipulation in Art. 25, para 1 of the Canada-Switzerland Treaty that “an exchange of information will only be requested once the requesting Contracting State has pursued all reasonable means available under its internal taxation procedure to obtain the information,” he stated that “[t]he true intentions of the parties, as they emerge from extrinsic materials when it comes to Article 25 (namely to promote the exchange of information to the maximum extent possible with a view, notably, of preventing tax evasion and avoidance), are reflected … in the actual language of that provision, coupled with that of the Interpretative Protocol" which, in Art. 2(c) thereof, "stated that the notion of 'foreseeable relevance' is intended 'to provide for exchange of information in tax matters to the widest possible extent', provided the requesting State does not engage in 'fishing expeditions' or request information 'unlikely to be relevant to the tax affairs of a given taxpayer'" (para. 28). Furthermore, “it was reasonably open to the CRA … to proceed with the … RFIs at the time it did in view of the fact that Messrs. ... Regarding the applicants’ submission that the specific listing in the Protocol, of types of information that could be requested, established a “ceiling” for such requests, LeBlanc JA stated (at paras. 47, 49) that “paragraph 2(b) of the Interpretative Protocol establishes a threshold, not an upper limit” and that “on a reasonableness analysis … there is no issue with the fact that the CRA provided the Swiss Authorities with more information—essentially background information—than what was minimally required by paragraph 2(b) of the Interpretative Protocol.” ...

Leblanc JA noted: (at para. 46, TaxInterpretations translation) that the “text of subsection 280(1) and section 280.1 … does not provide further guidance on whether the unpaid or unpaid ‘amount’ on which interest and penalty may be charged is gross or net [of rebate entitlements]” (at para. 50) that the rebate provisions in this case were intended by “Parliament … to remedy a situation that would otherwise be inequitable to non-registrant ‘builders’" who were unable to claim input tax credits for their GST costs (see para. 68), (at para. 64) that if the respondent had not reported the transaction and instead been assessed by CRA under s. 191(3), CRA would have been required under s. 296(2.1) to grant the rebate amounts Leblanc JA then stated (at paras. 66, 69): To paraphrase … Humber College, it would be incongruous, to say the least, if provisions purporting to assist a taxpayer caused more harm to a well-meaning taxpayer than to a less well-meaning one …. This cannot be the result that Parliament intended in enacting subsection 280(1) and section 280.1 …. I do not believe that Parliament, in enacting subsection 280(1) and section 280.1 …, had in its mind that the determination of the "amount" to be paid or remitted for the purposes of calculating interest and penalty for late filing of the GST return could, in circumstances such as these …, be made without regard to any rebate otherwise payable to the taxpayer. ...

After stating (at para. 61) that “subsection 94.1(1) … contemplates in express terms that an instrument that derives its value from fluctuating portfolio investments can be a debt” and (at para. 87) that a narrow construction of “debt” would go contrary to the purpose of the above provisions of “annual imputation of income while … foreign investments are in place,” Noël CJ found that future crystallization of the amount due was sufficient, and concluded (at para. 91): When regard is had to the text, context and purpose of paragraph 94.1(1)(a), a debt arises for purposes of this provision when an amount or credit is advanced by one party to another party; an amount is to be paid or repaid by that other party at some point in the future in satisfaction of the advance and this amount is fixed or determinable or will be ascertainable when payment is due. As these three conditions are present here … this suffices to dispose of the appeal …. ...

. … Moreover, the shareholder base of the taxpayer underwent a fundamental shift throughout the transactions …. Matco achieved the functional equivalent of … an acquisition of [de jure] control through the Investment Agreement, while circumventing s. 111(5), because it used separate transactions to dismember the rights and benefits that would normally flow from being a controlling shareholder. ...

. … [T]here is no case law that suggests a transferor includes a person who ceases to exist and has not otherwise undertaken some act or omission which transfers property prior to its… demise or dissolution. … After its dissolution, CIA could not legally, and … did not factually direct, author or contemplate such a transfer…. ...

Although the realization of the capital gain – to be offset by the value-shift loss – was realized in internal transactions, unlike Triad Gestco and 1207192, this was not a relevant difference. ...

In refusing this request, Martineau J indicated that, under ss. 165(3) and 171, the Tax Court had the power to cancel an assessment, and stated: …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. ...

Vocan submitted that its facility was a health care facility, being “a facility … operated for the purpose of providing medical … care,” so that its supply of the reports was exempted under Sched. ...

In finding that no penalty could be imposed, Monaghan JA noted (at para. 16) that essentially the only testimony was of the taxpayer’s husband, which “was almost entirely about his actions and inactions,” so that essentially “nothing on the record address[ed] her involvement in or knowledge about the details of the rental business … and nothing on the record establish[ed] whether … the appellant knew she had unreported income prior to receipt of the reassessments” (para. 18). ...

This occurred – the offer of another public company (“Inco” – the 25% minority shareholder) was accepted by the Diamond Fields shareholders, thereby triggering the payment by Diamond Fields of the break fee. ...