Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

The Supreme Court has consistently recognized that non-citizens do not have an unqualified right to enter or remain in Canada, and the government has a valid interest in expecting those present in Canada to have a legal right to be here …. The jurisprudence of this Court is also very clear that immigration status is not an analogous ground for the purposes of subsection 15(1) …. ...

Webb J.A. dismissed the appeal, stating (at paras 16, 21, 28 and 30): Although … [Bocock J] states …that “all taxpayers, who are directly subject to GAAR assessments, that is, non-third parties, are required to consider and apply GAAR”, in my view it is more accurate to state that all taxpayers who are contemplating a transaction or series of transactions that would result in a tax benefit should consider the risk that GAAR will apply to deny the tax benefit. ... As well, the requirement that the Minister in GAAR cases must establish that a tax benefit is not consistent with the object, spirit or purpose of the provisions relied upon by the taxpayer cannot justify a finding that any liability for any increased taxes would only arise once that reassessment is issued. … There is nothing in the Act that stipulates that the increased liability as a result of a reassessment based on GAAR only arises when the reassessment is issued. ...

., 2004 FCA 131, Near JA stated: (at para 4): … [W]hile not binding, opinions of the WCO must “at least be considered” in determining the classification of goods imported into Canada…. ... Near JA allowed the appeal, finding (at para 5): … [I]t is far from clear why the absence of castors and the location of the proposed use of the stands would make the stands in this case a part suitable for use solely or principally with televisions. ...

In this regard, Rivoalen JA quoted the statement of the Tax Court (at para. 55 of its reasons) that “there was no evidence that the Appellant actually ceased to be a resident of the Netherlands or was continued under Canadian law,” and stated (at paras. 19-20): [S]ubsection 128.1(1) … provides only for the consequences of a taxpayer becoming resident of Canada. There is no additional requirement that the taxpayer must cease being a resident of its former State …. ...

ITA 231.2(3) and ETA s. 289(3) for Roofmart to disclose various particulars for all of its customers who in the past 4 ½ years had made purchases of construction materials from Roofmart exceeding specified dollar thresholds. ... He further stated (at para. 39) that the “fact that the UPR may target an unspecified or large number of accounts or that a significant amount of financial information may be captured does not affect its validity,” and (at para. 45) that “ GMREB established that a pending or existing tax audit of a particular individual is not a precondition to the exercise of power under subsection 231.2(3).” ...

The Tax Court had found: “[T]he parties believed that they had established a ‘contract of enterprise or for services’ [and not a contract of employment] …” (quoted at para. 10) However, the Tax Court had gone on to apply the four Wiebe tests referred to above, and concluded that "the objective reality of the employment relationship, including [such] factors … indicates that there was an employee/employer relationship" (quoted at para. 12). ...

In finding that the Tax Court lacked the authority, in proceedings instituted by the taxpayer (“BCS”) subject to the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), to permit BCS to be represented by the (non-lawyer) individual (“Gagnon”) who was its sole shareholder, director and officer – so that the Tax Court erred in finding “that Mr. Gagnon personified BCS and that he was exercising BCS’s right to appear ‘in person’” (para. 64), Gauthier JA stated (at paras. 6): … I have concluded that the legislator did not intend to oust the common law and civil law principle that a corporation, because of its very nature, cannot appear “in person” before a court. ...

Locke JA also found (at para. 36) that Pizzitelli J had not made reviewable errors in refusing to order production of unredacted copies of various other requested internal documents – and, in this regard, he agreed with Pizzitelli J’s application of the view “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.” ...

Blue Bridge argued that it was the Minister’s responsibility to ensure that the “taxation … not contrary to the Convention” condition in Art. 26 was met before transmitting the requested information to France, whereas here, France was seeking to impose tax under a French wealth-tax statute which attributed all foreign trust assets to a French settlor or beneficiary in order to subject them to the tax, which in its view raised the possibility of the information being used to levy tax contrary to the Convention. ... She stated (at para. 47, TaxInterpretations translation): The judge rightly concluded that a requirement for thorough research and analysis of the facts and the law of the requesting State would impede the proper and effective operation of the Convention’s provisions …. ...

. … Thus, Public CO2 had the power to terminate the trustees’ functions by revoking or not renewing their mandate as directors. … [T]he mechanism put in place clearly gave Public CO2 the ability to change the appellant’s board of directors or to influence in a very direct manner those who had that ability. ...