Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

The benefit is …. 10% of construction costs of $259,293 or, $25,929. This is clearly an advantage not available to regular customers …. ... The Queen, 2009 TCC 588 that: None of [the cited cases], however, support the appellant’s proposition that adjustments to the expenses of a previous fiscal period, and concomitant changes to the income of the employee for a previous year, may be made on a retroactive basis …. ...

Hogan J found that the gain of the s.à r.l.was exempted from Canadian capital gains tax by virtue of the exclusion in Art. 13(4) of the Canada-Luxembourg Treaty which provided that the Alta Canada shares were not deemed immovable property (and thus not subject to Canadian capital gains tax) if the Alta Canada licences qualified as property of Alta Canada “in which the business of the company … was carried on.” ... It is certainly not the role of the Court to disturb their bargain …. ... There is also nothing in the Treaty that suggest that a holding corporation, resident in Luxembourg, should be denied the benefit of the Treaty because its shareholders are not themselves residents of Luxembourg. … The rationale underlying the carve-out is to exempt residents of Luxembourg from Canadian taxation where there is an investment in immovable property used in a business. ...

In confirming the disallowance of the taxpayers’ deduction under s. 8(1)(b) for one of their taxation years, Russell J first noted (without apparently being aware of the extended definition of “salary or wages” in s. 248(1)) that the amendment of s. 8(1)(b) to replace “salary or wages” by "subdivision a" income “has some effect” (para. 18), but then concluded a discussion of the many parallels between this case and Fenwick with the statement (at para. 27): …[T]he FCA …found that it was reasonably open … [to deny] relief to the taxpayer on the basis that the claim he was defending against extended beyond the basis of the employee/employer relationship. Likewise …, the claims the appellants are defending against arise quite differently- from allegations of unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary obligations. He also stated (at paras. 21-22): [T]he FCA justice did accept … that the provision should be applicable not just for a taxpayer seeking payment of salary or wages from an employer or former employer, but as well in situations where the employer or former employer was seeking return of such income. ...

In our case, that is the car buyer who buys the insurance product and he would clearly and objectively know he was buying insurance, not the expertise or training, or commercial efficacy or profitability of the Dealer or its staff as the predominant elements of the transaction, notwithstanding that such services … may have an ancillary role to play in his decision making process…. There is simply no merit to the Respondent’s argument that the services or duties under the Dealer Agreement that may be said to be owed to Walkaway from the Appellant constitute the predominant element of the services to be provided under the Dealer Agreement…. … The bottom line is that the Appellant’s compensation is based and only arises on a sale of the Insurance Products. … I find that the predominant element of the Appellant’s service was the arranging for the sale of insurance which falls within the definition of a “financial service”, notwithstanding that some of the ancillary services provided by the Appellant could be considered promotional or administrative…. ...

The Respondent concludes … that it “would be unfair for this Court to allow him to reduce his taxable income in future years while never having paid taxes on the excess contribution as taxable income.” ... Moreover … the Court does not make decisions on the basis of fairness (Barel v The Queen, 2009 TCC 156 and Lapierre v The Queen, 2019 TCC 18) …. ...

Mikhail “could not tie a particular purchase for the pharmacy to a gift card or prepaid credit card,” thereby making it difficult to satisfy CRA that the rebates had been used by the Corporation to purchase supplies for use in its business, Monaghan J found (at paras 25 and 26): … I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the In-Kind Rebates were used to purchase items for the Corporation and its pharmacy and that the Mikhails’ decision to include the unreported Rebates as income personally was motivated by the desire to resolve the issue in a way that made it easy for the CRA to accept. … [T]he In-Kind Rebates were not deposited in his and his wife’s personal accounts, but rather had been included in their personal income tax returns as income to make it easy for the CRA to get its taxes and allow him to move on. … I conclude that the unreported In-Kind Rebates were not received or otherwise enjoyed by the Mikhails personally and accordingly their appeals should be allowed. ...

Boyle J concluded (at para 40): … I am satisfied that the appropriate contribution from the Respondent to Univar’s legal fees in this appeal is $300,000. ... In recognition of some inherent duplication and inefficiencies …, I am not allowing anything for the other two associates who each had recorded less than 5% of the total time. ... These, in addition to (a), (b) and (e) considerations, all favour a higher award of costs on this costs motion. … ...

If the Reply were to stand, the scope of discoveries would be unmanageable …. ... Making repetitive pleadings (and also adding a Schedule that “did not contain any material facts as it [was] drafted with generic words – para. 108). ... The inclusion of evidence on which the Crown intended to rely (e.g., the inclusion of Schedules which had the look of working papers – para. 166). ...

. … [A] GST registrant should be entitled to determine its input tax credits on the basis of information in its possession without having to resort to hiring expensive third parties, such as valuators or, as I will discuss, engineers to measure spaces on its ships or experts to try to determine what percentage of fuel is consumed to propel a ship and what percentage is consumed to produce electricity, heat or hot water. … [A] methodology that is based on the actual use of the space used to carry on an integrated business such as the one carried on by the Appellant and that involves a detailed review of all areas of its operations is a fair and reasonable method …. ...

However, that is all it does …. There is nothing in the wording of subsection 13(31) that creates the fiction of the Limited Partnership having a year-end prior to February 1, 2005—specifically … a 12-month fictional taxation year that ended on January 31, 2005. The creation of such a fictional taxation year would require very specific wording that, at a minimum, addresses the fictional existence of the Limited Partnership during this period and the beginning and end of the fictional taxation year. … [T]he Appellant’s position defeats the purpose of the two-year rolling start rule by shortening the length of time that the Limited Partnership is required to have held the property to one completed taxation year. ...