Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

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. ...

Duval v Agence du revenu du Québec, 2023 QCCS 4739-- summary under Section 1010.0.2 Summary Under Tax Topics- Other Legislation/Constitution- Quebec- Taxation Act- Section 1010.0.2 Quebec Superior Court has jurisdiction to consider requests for judicial review of ARQ refusals to reassess consequentially on a federal reassessment The Quebec taxpayers did not object to ARQ reassessments that denied ½ of their claimed business loss for 2010 – but then successfully appealed to the Tax Court similar federal reassessments of that year. ...

., 2018 SCC 8 " and that: “As Rothstein J. wrote, because of this fiduciary relationship,’“[t]he beneficial owner of property has been described as ‘the real owner of property even though it is in someone else’s name’ ‘ (Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17 …).” (at para. 49) that: “Another core attribute of beneficial ownership is certainty as to the property that is subject to the trust ….” ...

See summaries under s. 9 – timing, s. 12(1)(x), and s. 9 – computation of profit. ...

In response to the Attorney General’s argument that “the Applicant has a right to free speech, not to subsidized speech” through the ability to issue charitable receipts, Morgan J stated (at para. 43): [T]he evidence is that the Applicant cannot function – or will have difficulty in functioning – in the absence of registered charitable status. ...

In confirming the decision of the Federal Court to the same effect, Rennie JA stated (at para. 21): The [latter] proposal letter … is not a reviewable decision or order. … [I]t did not determine any of the taxpayer’s rights, substantive or procedural…. Before so concluding, he stated (at paras 13, 17): The Notices of Reassessment having been issued, the question whether an injunction could have issued restraining their issuance pending determination of the second-level VDP application is moot. … [T]he reassessments are valid and binding until set aside by the Tax Court…. ...

. … [R]eliance is not the test for relevance. … [C]onsideration of the documents in the context of the audit of the Appellant is sufficient to make them relevant for the purposes of discovery. ... After noting (at para. 85) that “[i]f the GAAR Committee had considered the Appellant’s case, there is no doubt that the Appellant would be entitled to discovery of all non‑privileged documents considered by the GAAR Committee in deciding to assess the Appellant under the GAAR,” Owen J stated (at para. 86): [T]he Appellant is equally entitled to all non-privileged documents considered by the GAAR Committee in deciding to assess under the GAAR the unrelated taxpayer described in the Similar Case … because that decision directly resulted in the subsequent decision to assess the Appellant under the GAAR. ...

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. ... Among other findings: “Diamond Fields paid the Fees in order to entice Falconbridge to make an offer pursuant to the merger arrangements” so that it was “reasonable to consider that the Fees were received by Falconbridge as an inducement for the purposes of s. 12(1)(x)” (para. 61 – and in this regard “the evidence as to Falconbridge’s motivation to negotiate a fee (i.e., to deter another bidder and to earn a profit if the bid failed) is not relevant to this issue” (para. 63); and “The Fees were linked to Falconbridge’s operations as a nickel mining company”, which “required access to ore deposits” so that they were received “in the course of” those activities (a phrase which was essentially equated with "in connection with") (para. 70); furthermore, “the Fees were linked to an acquisition of shares that had the capacity to produce property income” so that they were “also received in the course of earning income from property” (para. 71). ...

Canada, 2024 SCC 24-- summary under Subsection 296(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 296- Subsection 296(1) assessment is a non-discretionary number Before confirming that the taxpayer’s Federal Court motion for judicial review had represented an impermissible collateral attack on assessments made under ETA s. 296, Kasirer J stated (at para. 49): Okalta Oils — like other cases that rely on a like definition of “assessment” — stands for the proposition that a tax assessment is a non-discretionary determination of the Minister as to “the actual sum in tax which the taxpayer is liable to pay” …. ... Assessing tax is, for the Minister, not a discretionary decision but a mandatory duty imposed by statute, specifically by ss. 275 and 296 of the ETA. … Rennie J.A. rightly said, at para. 17 of his reasons, that the “fulfillment of [a non-discretionary] statutory responsibility cannot be an improper motive for the Minister to issue an assessment”. ...

MacPhee J found that the filing of the extension application was insufficient to consider that the proceeding (the appeal) had been launched before the dissolution – and essentially followed 1455257 Ontario in finding that the Manitoba statute “does not allow a dissolved corporation to initiate a civil procedure” (para. 13), and also stated (at para. 12): Pursuant to the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), an originating document means a document that is filed under section 21 of the Tax Court of Canada Act …. The only document filed by the Appellant under section 21 … was the Notice of Appeal, which was filed on May 26, 2017, a little more than a month after the corporation was dissolved. ...