Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

Minister of National Revenue, [1996] 2 CTC 88, 96 DTC 6232 Décary J.A — The Minister of National Revenue has denied the appellant’s application for charitable tax status under sections 149.1 and 248(1) of the Income Tax Act in a decision-letter dated October 14, 1994. ...

NO JURISDICTION IN TAX REVIEW BOARD OR FEDERAL COURT — TRIAL DIVISION (2) Neither the Tax Review Board nor the Federal Court — Trial Division has jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding in respect of a decision of the Minister from which an appeal may be instituted under this section. ... Furthermore, the record of the material before the Director has an even more serious defect — that is — it is a unilateral record since it contained no imput from the appellant. ... In order to understand the issue, it is necessary to have in mind the following provisions of the Income Tax Act'. 168. (1) Where a registered charity or a registered Canadian amateur athletic association (a) applies to the Minister in writing for revocation of its registration, (b) ceases to comply with the requirements of this Act for its registration as such, the Minister may, by registered mail, give notice to the registered charity or registered Canadian amateur athletic association that he proposes to revoke its registration. (2) Where the Minister gives notice under subsection (1) to a registered charity or to a registered Canadian amateur athletic association, (a) if the organization or association has applied to him in writing for the revocation of its registration, the Minister shall, forthwith after the mailing of the notice, publish a copy thereof in the Canada Gazette, and (b) in any other case, the Minister may, after the expiration of 30 days from the day of mailing of the notice, or after the expiration of such extended period from the day of mailing of the notice as the Federal Court of Appeal or a judge thereof, upon application made at any time before the determination of any appeal pursuant to subsection 172(3) from the giving of the notice, may fix or allow, publish a copy of the notice in the Canada Gazette, and upon such publication of a copy of the notice, the registration of the organization or association is revoked. 172. (3) Where the Minister (a) refuses to register an applicant for registration as a registered charity or registered Canadian amateur athletic association, or gives notice under subsection 168(1) to such a charity or association that he proposes to revoke its registration, the applicant or the charity or association, as the case may be, in a case described in paragraph (a),... may, notwithstanding section 2e of the Federal Court Act, appeal from... the giving of such notice to the Federal Court of Appeal. 180. (1) An appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal pursuant to subsection 172(3) may be instituted by filing a notice of appeal in the Court within 30 days from (a) the time the decision of the Minister to refuse the application for registration or for a certificate of exemption or to revoke the registration of the profit sharing plan was served by the Minister by registered mail on the party instituting the appeal, or (b) from the mailing of notice to the registered charity or registered Canadian amateur athletic association under subsection 168(1), as the case may be, or within such further time as the Court of Appeal or a judge thereof may, either before or after the expiry of those 30 days, fix or allow. (2) Neither the Tax Review Board nor the Federal Court — Trial Division has jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding in respect of a decision of the Minister from which an appeal may be instituted under this section. (3) An appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal instituted under this section shall be heard and determined in a summary way. ...

.: — Between 1977 and 1979 David, Cindy and Brian Ludmer (the “Ludmers”) and Ludco Enterprises Ltd. ... Lidder (sub nom Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) v. Lidder) [1992] 2 F.C. 621, (sub nom. ... Federation of Self-Employed & Small Businesses Ltd., [1981] 2 All E.R. 93, [1982] A.C. 617 (H.L.); Preston v. ...

The amount of that tax was, once identified, not yet paid, and demanded, — and it is still — not theirs to give. ... It seems to me that such an interpretation ignores the fact that the word “owns” in the paragraph is used together with the words “... holds, claims or uses any patent, proprietary, sales or other rights to goods....” ... Coopers & Lybrand Ltd. et al. (1986), 53 O.R. (2d) 468 at 477; 24 D.L.R. (4th) 516 at 525 as follows: —... ...

The case came on for hearing on the morning of May 3, 1984, and at the end of the argument, just before the noon recess, the presiding judge made known his reaction to the evidence heard and explained his views as to law concluding the whole by stating: ”... ... The Court shall give reasons for its decisions but, except where the Court deems it advisable in any particular case to give reasons in writing, the reasons given by it need not be in writing. 171.(1) Disposal of appeal. — The Tax Court of Canada may dispose of an appeal by (a) dismissing it; or (b) allowing it and (i) vacating the assessment, (ii) varying the assessment, or (iii) referring the assessment back to the Minister for reconsideration and reassessment. 171.(4) Copy of decision to Minister and appellant. — Upon the disposition of an appeal, the Tax Court of Canada shall forthwith forward, by registered mail, a copy of the decision and any written reasons given therefor to the Minister and the appellant. ... It is true also that there are judgments which urge that only in exceptional circumstances could a judge consider altering a decree after verbal utterance (without however — it ought to be noted — giving any indication as to what could qualify as exceptional circumstances and whether the limitation would be based on a legal principle or on a moral or practical requirement). [3] But I know of no case where the jurisdiction of a judge to vary a verbal pronouncement made in open court prior to the entering of a formal judgment has been denied. ...

Maguire & Associates, a firm of financial and tax consultants in Toronto. ... See also Mollawo, March & Co. v. Court of Wards (1872), L.R. 4 P.C. 419 (India P.C.). ... Maguire & Associates. ...

The second issue relates to the travelling expenses of the respondent who resided at Niagara Falls, Ontario, incurred in attending at one or other of the Jockey Club’s three tracks — Woodbine and Greenwood in Toronto and Fort Erie at Fort Erie, Ontario — in order to discharge his duties of employment. ...

The discounts claimed by Crestbrook in these same taxation years were as follows: 1984 1985 1986 Sales $67,060,725 $55,591,118 $83,690,773 Discount $ 3,793,193 $ 3,148,053 $ 4,659,422 Discount as percentage 5.65% 5.66% 5.567% By notice of reassessment issued under Part I of the Income Tax Act, the Minister of National Revenue reassessed Crestbrook for those taxation years. ... First, he said that since section 251 of the Act defines in some detail the method by which corporate entities are deemed to be related for income tax purposes, the focus of this case should not be on "control" of Crestbrook by Honshu and Mitsubishi, but rather the deemed “ relationship” of Crestbrook to the two Japanese companies. ...

In 1969 the respondent company — a Quebec family company engaged in the manufacture of feed and raising of turkeys in St-Pie, a village near Montreal — borrowed $300,000 from the Industrial Development Bank to purchase a piece of land and construct buildings to be used in expanding its operations. ... It was submitted — and the Crown generously conceded — that the trust would have obtained an interest deduction if it had sold assets to make the capital allocation and borrowed to replace them. ...

The domestic insurer was Victoria Insurance Company of Canada in 1970, Scottish & York Insurance Co. ... The evidence was that they were required by Scottish & York Insurance Co. ... If the money were not there — money which incidentally had come from the plaintiff directly or indirectly — then the plaintiff would not be recompensed for its loss, at least unless it provided the funds to this subsidiary of its subsidiary with which to reimburse itself. ...