Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

Ontario (Finance), 2021 ONCA 10-- summary under Absurdities Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Absurdities “the principle that governments have the right to legislate illogically” was “not … persuasive” As a result of being reassessed to deny the carryback of a loss, the taxpayer was required to pay the reassessed taxes – but, following success in its objection, later was refunded the tax. ... It is also not a principle of statutory interpretation to be readily invoked. … The language in s. 79(7) is not unambiguous when read in its entire context. While it is not necessary to resort to it in this case … there remains “a residual presumption in favour of the taxpayer” …. ...

. … …[As per] Robertson and Henley … it is only when the condition or contingency is met that such a benefit arises. ...

The Queen, 2009 TCC 70, to “enable … more extensive changes to be made to a statutory provision than were permitted by mutatis mutandis ” so that it was “no longer … limited to points of detail,” Evans J.A. remarked (at paras. 53-54): It is reasonable to conclude that when Parliament in 1983 replaced the Latin phrase in subsection 227(10) with "plain" English and French words it merely intended to make the provision more accessible. ...

In finding that Maersk’s fees came within Article 9 rather than 13, Sikri J stated (at para 12): '[P]rofit' from operation of ships under Article…9 … would necessarily include expenses for earning that income and … [the] more so, when it is found that the business cannot be run without these expenses. This Court … has categorically held that use of [a] facility does not amount to technical services, as technical services denote services catering to the special needs of the person using them and not a facility provided to all. ...

In my view none of the exhibits to MP’s affidavit … can reasonably be construed as being such a certificate or true copy of the relevant portion thereof.... … I cannot find that CRA’s “special mail services request form”, albeit presumably with a Canada Post “tracking number” stamped or affixed thereon, can reasonably be considered, “the post office certificate of registration of the letter or a true copy of the relevant portion thereof” per subsection 335(1). Thus subsection 335(1) has not been complied with. … My second concern is that in the July 31, 2017 Canada Post email to MP …, the Canada Post Customer Service Team identifies the missing registered letter as, “... this Registered Letter mailed May 24/17 to Raad Murad.”… It is [the Appellant] that is the entity to which registered mail … was to have been sent. ... He also noted (at para. 24) that proof of the sending of the Notice of Confirmation by registered mail could have been “by the Respondent calling one or more witnesses to provide viva voce evidence based on personal knowledge” – but this was not done. ...

. … [T] here is no evidence that the auditor … was authorized, in the course of her duties, to disclose it in whole or in part. ...

Canada, 2020 FCA 47-- summary under Consistency Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Consistency presumption of consistent expression is not absolute In the context of his view that the determination of whether “Notes” held by an offshore fund in which the taxpayer was invested constituted “debt” should be determined in light of the text, context and purpose of the particular provision at issue (s. 94.1(1)(a)) rather than such determination being made for purposes of the Act as a whole, Noël CJ stated (at paras. 52-53): The parties also proceeded on the assumption that the meaning of debt is the same throughout the Act regardless of the provision in which this word is used …. The presumption of consistent expression supports this approach …. However, this presumption is not absolute. ...

. … As noted in 1455257, a proceeding is instituted before the Tax Court by filing “[a]n originating document” as prescribed by the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure). 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. … Subsection 242(1) of the Manitoba CA does not allow a dissolved corporation to initiate a civil procedure. … ...

. … [P]rovincial inability is established in this case. … First, the provinces, acting alone or together, are constitutionally incapable of establishing minimum national standards of GHG price stringency to reduce GHG emissions. … Second, a failure to include one province in the scheme would jeopardize its success in the rest of Canada. … Moreover, the matter’s impact on the provinces’ freedom to legislate and on areas of provincial life that would fall under provincial heads of power is qualified and limited. ...

For example … there may be an interrelationship between the Appellant’s acquisition of the investment management services and its resupply of such services to the Pension Plans. … The Court cannot answer the Rule 58 Question … in a factual vacuum. ...