Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

In confirming the Tax Court’s dismissal of the taxpayer’s motion to compel answers to these and other questions, Locke JA first indicated (at para. 22) that it was “tempting to … [consider] that documents must be publicly available in order to be relevant to statutory interpretation,” but then also noted (at para. 30) that Upper Churchill [1984] 1 S.C.R. 297) “leave[s] room for cases where extrinsic evidence will not be relevant, but it also limits the issues to which such evidence might be relevant.” ... In this regard, he agreed (at para. 19) with the Tax Court’s view that “that earlier drafts of a final position paper do not have to be disclosed, and … that even where relevance is established, the Court has a residual discretion to refuse document production.” ... That document is hence similar to the “earlier drafts of a final position paper” which do not have to be disclosed …. ...

. … Mr. Barrs finds himself faced with an interest bill that far exceeds those of the taxpayers who made their requests for relief in 2004. ... Given that the independent third-level review officer failed to engage with the request for greater relief in the open years to ensure equitable treatment, his decision must be set aside. … Failure to engage with an important argument advanced by a party will generally render an administrative decision unreasonable [citing Vavilov] …. ...

In reversing the Tax Court and in finding that the non-capital losses were deductible, Webb JA noted that, under Stewart, the test of whether “the activity is being carried out in a commercially sufficient manner to constitute a source of income” (Stewart, at para. 60) was only engaged “if there is a hobby or personal element to the activity in question” (Brown, at para. 26), and stated (at paras. 27, 29): … Mr. Brown’s decision to provide these management services as a result of his wife’s inability to continue to manage the gallery, does not mean that there is a personal or hobby element to his management services activity …. ... It is possible to find a personal reason why any person is carrying on a particular activity. … Since there was no personal or hobby element in Mr. ...

. … [T]he fact is that the same eighteen persons who formed the Partnership were the very same persons who comprised the Co-Tenancy. … [T]he agreement to pay the tenant inducement payment of $1.2 million was of no legal consequence and.. it cannot be considered an outlay or expense made for the purpose of gaining or producing income…. ...

The Queen, 74 DTC 6540, [1974] CTC 681 (FCA)-- summary under Interpretation/Definition Provisions Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Interpretation/Definition Provisions tags captured a broader range of operations than those specifically referenced In finding that the reference in the definition of “farming” to "maintaining" of horses for racing included an operation where the care and training of the horses was contracted out to independent contractors, Jackett CJ stated (at p. 6541): [T]he words “maintaining of horses for racing” were intended to apply not only to what is commonly thought of as the operation of a racing stable but also to the less pretentious business operations consisting of racing horses in circumstances where the businessman does not have his own stable and pasture premises and staff of “boys” and trainers …. This would seem to follow from the context of the definition where expressions such as ‘“tillage of the soil”, “raising of poultry” and ‘the keeping of bees” are obviously used, in each case, to refer to the whole gamut of operations constituting the particular class of business succinctly described by the words commonly used to describe it. … What was being done throughout the definition of “farming” was the adoption of short “tags” to indicate different types of operations. ...

In filing his returns for those years he deducted significant amounts for moving expenses, and received refunds for each year – but was later reassessed so that he was required to repay the refunds. ... Thurlow CJ stated at the conclusion of his reasons: As there was no statutory provision imposing an obligation to pay interest for the use of the refunds until the errors were corrected by reassessments, the taxpayer…was not liable for such interest …. ...

. … In other words, any action taken to obtain a tax benefit would be an avoidance transaction and there would never be an occasion to determine the primary purpose of a transaction. … The words of the Act require consideration of a transaction in its entirety and it is not open to the Crown artificially to split off various aspects of it in order to create an avoidance transaction. ...

. … [A]ll that is required is that the institution be empowered to grant degrees by a relevant authority such as the province of British Columbia. … ...

. … In this case, the only possible conclusion is that the monies received by the respondent are success fees for driving and training services it provided to owners, not "prizes" within the meaning of subsection 188(2)…. In support of this conclusion, he referenced Rule 18.11 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing enacted under the Racing Commission Act 2000 (Ontario), and stated (at para. 24): [T]he Rule confirms that "drivers' and/or trainers' fees " [my emphasis] are deducted from the owners' purse money. ...

.… … The appellant is neither a lawyer nor a notary. Therefore, in this case, section 231.7 still authorized the Federal Court to make the order it did. Respecting the further submission that the order “indirectly ordered the appellant’s law firm to disclose material, contrary to the Supreme Court’s two decisions” he stated (para. 9): … The Federal Court’s order is directed only against the appellant…. ...