Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Receiver-Manager for Comanche Drilling Ltd. v. ... Unlike the Coopers & Lybrand case, funds were actually available to pay the remittances. ...

Will Kare Paving & Contracting Ltd. v. The Queen, 98 DTC 6203 (FCA)-- summary under Class 39 Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Regulations- Schedules- Schedule II- Class 39 The taxpayer purchased an asphalt plant with the expectation that it would sell up to 40% of the production of the plant to third parties and use the balance in its own asphalt paving business. ... Furthermore, the Coopers & Lybrand case (94 DTC 6541) had been properly applied in finding that the taxpayer's own use under contracts that were for working materials and not in respect of the sale of goods did not represent the purchase of "goods for sale or lease". ...

Patricia & Daniel Blais O/A Satronics Satellites v The Queen, 2010 TCC 361, 2010 DTC 1271 [at 3904] (Informal Procedure)-- summary under Paragraph 212(1)(d) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 212- Subsection 212(1)- Paragraph 212(1)(d) payments to access satellite network were not rent or royalty The taxpayers sold individual customers access to the satellite network of an American firm ("NPS"). ... Saint John Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. ([1980] C.T.C. 352 (F.C.A.)) for the proposition that a "rent" connotes a grant of property that lasts for a fixed or determinable term, reverting thereafter to the grantor. ...

Customs & Excise Commissioners, [2001] BTC 5083 (HL)-- summary under Supply Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 123- Subsection 123(1)- Supply Fees which the Appellant received from credit cardholders were found to be consideration for a single supply of insurance services. After quoting the statement in Customs & Excise Commissioners v. Madgett, [1998] BTC 5440 that "a service must be regarded as ancillary to a principal service if it does not constitute for customers an aim in itself, but a means of better enjoying the principal service applied", Lord Slynn found (at p. 5090) that: "If one asks what is the essential feature of the scheme or its dominant purpose, perhaps why objectively people are likely to want to join it, I have no doubt it is to obtain a provision of insurance cover against loss arising from the misuse of credit cards or other documents. ...

R & S Industries Inc. v. The Queen, 2017 TCC 75-- summary under Subsection 97(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 97- Subsection 97(2) taxpayer is not bound by the statement of boot set out in its s. 97(2) election form The taxpayer (“R & S”) transferred its business to a limited partnership, with a joint s. 97(2) election being made. The Minister reassessed R & S to include substantial amounts in its income as a result of the transfer. A request by R & S and the partnership to file an amended election was denied by the Minister and the Federal Court denied their application for judicial review of this decision. ...

Hancock & Anor v Revenue and Customs, [2019] UKSC 24-- summary under Redundancy/reading in words Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Redundancy/reading in words phrase read out of provision to give effect to intent The taxpayers relied on a literal interpretation of provisions to rely on proposition that it had avoided tax on a capital gain on the sale of their domestic private company for foreign-currency denominated loan notes through a partial conversion of some of the loan notes into qualifying corporate bonds (“QCBs”) and with the QCBs and the unconverted loan notes then being converted into one series of secured discounted loan notes (“SLNs”), with such notes then being sold on an exempt basis. ... However, she then stated (at paras. 21, 23-24, 26): [T]he appellants’ interpretation result would be inexplicable in terms of the policy expressed in these provisions. … Floyd and Lewison LJJ [below] did not give any meaning to the words “or include” in section 116(1)(b), but as I see it this was appropriate because … it is clear that the intention of Parliament was that each security converted into a QCB should be viewed as a separate conversion …. ... This enables the court, when interpreting a statute, to adopt (my words) a strained interpretation in place of one which would be contrary to the clear intention of Parliament. … Nothing in this judgment detracts from the principle in Luke but in my judgment, it is unnecessary to consider its application in this case because … the construction of the relevant provisions is clear without resort to it. ...

R & S Industries Inc. v. The Queen, 2017 TCC 75-- summary under Subsection 171(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 171- Subsection 171(1) Tax Court had jurisdiction to consider change to description of consideration in s. 97(2) election form R & S Industries was unsuccessful in a motion to have the Federal Court direct CRA to reconsider its decision to not permit R & S Industries to file an amended s. 97(2) election form so as to change the agreed amounts. R & S then appealed to the Tax Court with a view to convincing the Court that the allocation of consideration between partnership-interest and non-partnership interest consideration set out on the (T2059) election form did not reflect the actual agreed allocation. CRA viewed this as an attempted end run around R & S’s inability to amend its election, and sought to have the appeal dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. ...

Dawson (quoted at para. 27): First, there must be a pre-ordained series of transactions; or, if one likes, one single composite transaction. …. ... It by no means follows that the Ramsay approach should be incapable of applying wherever the ultimate purchaser and price cannot be identified. … The FTT considered that the sale to Merrill Lynch "sufficiently corresponded to the scheme as planned" and commented that it "would be extraordinary if the application of the Ramsay approach could be defeated by the sale being to brokers rather than to the market by brokers on behalf of the Irish Trustees" …. The UT held that the FTT had been entitled to conclude that the involvement of Merrill Lynch made no material difference …. ...

R & S Industries Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue), 2016 FC 275-- summary under Subsection 18.1(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Other Legislation/Constitution- Federal- Federal Courts Act- Section 18.1- Subsection 18.1(2) extension not granted due to unexplained lengthy delay and lack of substantive merit On September 1, 2005, the appellant (“R & S”) transferred its assets to a limited partnership (“BELP”) which was controlled by its controlling shareholder. ... On November 12, 2010 R & S filed a Notice of Objection asserting that a reassessment of its return for the taxation year of the transfer was based on amounts mistakenly provided on the previously-filed s. 97(2) election form. ... On August 8, 2014, CRA confirmed the reassessment, to which R & S filed a Notice of Objection. ...

Development Securities (No. 9) Ltd & Ors v HMRC, [2017] UKFTT 565 (TC), rev'd [2019] UKUT 169 but FTT decision confirmed at [2020] EWCA Civ 1705-- summary under Subsection 2(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 2- Subsection 2(1) a Jersey sub, whose board approved in Jersey a decision contrary to the sub’s interests, resided in the U.K. ... Morgan J first noted (at paras 406, 412): …In reality, … the [Jersey] companies’ real business was to undertake the parent’s plan for the realisation of enhanced capital losses through the acquisition of assets at an overvalue under call option arrangements. … It is inherent in the uncommercial nature of what was proposed or, in other words, that lack of any commercial benefit … that the board were undertaking to implement the necessary steps from the outset on the “say so” of the parent (subject to the legality issue). … In finding that the Jersey companies had their central management and control in the U.K. at all relevant times, so that the appeal was dismissed, she concluded (at paras 426 and 430): Unlike Wood v Holden … this was not a case where the board considered a proposal and, having taken appropriate advice, decided that it was in the best interests of the companies to enter into it. ... The Jersey board were simply administering a decision they were instructed to undertake by DS Plc, in checking the legality of the plan and then administering the other consequent actions prior to handing over completely to the UK group. … In effect, the Jersey board merely rubber stamped the decision to move control back to the UK, having fulfilled the terms of their engagement. ...