Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

Regarding Hootsuite’s access to the EC2 and X3 cloud-computing (”infrastructure as a service”) of AWS), Thomas indicated (at para. 90) that “EC2 creates a virtual machine to provide computing resources to Hootsuite … [that] is opaque to the user- it cannot be manipulated or directly accessed by Hootsuite” and (at para. 98) that “S3 is a hardware storage product in which users install an application program to store and backup data on the virtual machine.” ...

. … Quite clearly, the fact that the parties were splitting money that was not theirs and believed that they could profit without putting at risk their own patrimony or property took away one of the fundamental safeguards that is inherent in an arm’s length relationship. ...

. … If the corporate beneficiary is deemed under subsection 104(19) to have received the same dividend as the dividend received by the trust in the same taxation year as the dividend was, as a question of fact, received by the trust, then the legal fiction created by subsection 104(19) does not change the actual date that the dividend was received. ...

It rejected the contention of STAI that the amount of interest actually paid over the 10 year period was equal to or less than that which might be expected to have been paid between independent parties in similar circumstances over the same period, as the transfer-pricing standard was required to be met on a tax year by tax year basis – and the Commissioner had the discretion to adjust the interest for earlier years upwards. ...

It rejected the contention of STAI that the amount of interest actually paid over the 10 year period was equal to or less than that which might be expected to have been paid between independent parties in similar circumstances over the same period, as the transfer-pricing standard was required to be met on a tax year by tax year basis – and the Commissioner had the discretion to adjust the interest for earlier years upwards. ...

Regarding the CRA position that, even if it had the discretion under s. 220(3) to accept the filing of a new T5013 return, no extension was appropriate, Régimbald J found (at para. 134) that CRA had failed to consider inter alia that its reassessment “would create injustices” given Onex’s representations that “they always intended to benefit from the ultimate tax result now provided by Bill C-43, and that their request was not an attempt at retroactive tax planning” – and that CRA had “failed to explain why, in its view, the ‘harsh consequences’ in this case better reflected Parliament’s intention” (para. 141). ...

Regarding the first point, she noted that the redemption amount was not required by s. 181(5) to be paid “exclusively” or “primarily” in the course of a commercial activity, and stated (at para. 26): Unlike the words exclusively and primarily, the phrase “in the course of” has a broad meaning; it means “incidental to” or “connected to” directly or indirectly …. ...

. … [The 2021] notices of objection have not been adjudicated. In light of these circumstances, quashing the Minister’s decision to reassess may therefore have the practical effect of ordering the Minister to reconsider her decision. ...

., acquiring the FMO units at a high cost in steps 2 and 4, being allocated a capital gain by FMO in step 6 so as to generate a CDA increase which could then be distributed, and having their high cost FMO units redeemed in Step 7 so as to generate a capital loss to offset the capital gain in step 6) and “the only purpose for the appellants’ participation in the series of transactions was to pay capital dividends to their parent corporations and to avoid Part III tax in doing so” (para. 202) – and there accordingly was an avoidance transaction. ...

. – whereas here the taxpayers had substantiated the existence of an RCA by obtaining an actuarial report to support the amount of contributions necessary to provide them with a reasonable pension on retirement. ...