Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

Respecting the conflict between ss. 142(1)(d) and 142(2)(d), which respectively deemed a supply of a service in relation to real property inside Canada or outside Canada to be made in Canada or outside Canada – so that a single supply here, which would have related to both, would have been deemed to be made both inside and outside Canada, Dawson JA found (at para. 95) that in this context of services in relation to a cross-border real estate portfolio, there were two supplies, so that the services in relation to the Canadian and foreign real estate were taxable and non-taxable, respectively: I see no reason in principle that precludes splitting up the supply so that the supply is treated as two supplies in order to recognize that ultimately the services are inherently distinct in one important respect: the services relating to the operation of the vacation homes located in Canada are services in relation to real property situated in Canada and hence are a taxable supply – the services relating to the operation of the Intrawest vacation homes situated outside of Canada are services related to real property situated outside of Canada and hence are a non-taxable supply. ...

Before ordering that the taxpayer was to be paid interest on the $12.75 million pursuant to s. 164(3), Webb JA stated (at paras. 26, 33 and 34): … [S]etting aside the Jeopardy Order in this case would mean that subsection 164(1.1) of the Act, should be read as if the Jeopardy Order had never been issued. ... Grenon’s appeal is that all or a portion of the refunded amount is still payable, there is no loss to the federal government if interest is paid on the refunded amount, absent any collection concerns. … There is a loss to Mr. ...

This was accomplished by setting up a sandwich structure immediately after the acquisition, under which a new Canadian unlimited liability company, capitalized with notes and high-PUC shares, held the shares of a U.S. corporation holding Univar Canada – so that such U.S. corporation could distribute the shares of Univar Canada (on a Treaty-exempt basis) to its controlling Canadian purchaser (the ULC) without technically being affected by the s. 212.1(1) deemed dividend rule. ... Whether the surplus of the Canadian corporation is removed by completing the alternative transactions described … above or by completing the transactions that were done in this case, the same surplus is removed from Canada. ...

In confirming the finding below that the appellant was a loan corporation, notwithstanding that it did not accept deposits from the public (as contemplated in for example, the use of that term under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act (Ontario)), Near JA stated (at paras 26, 27, 35): I agree … that the words loan corporation mean “a corporation that makes loans” (TCC Decision at para. 120). … There are no references in the text to regulated entities or to deposits. ...

Gervais’ income, Noël CJ stated (at paras 50 and 51): … Subparagraph 40(1)(a)(i) required that the ACB of the shares sold by Ms. ... That result, although it flows from the text of the relevant provisions, is contrary to the object, spirit and purpose of subsections 73(1) and 74.2(1), the purpose of which is to ensure that a gain (or loss) deferred by reason of a rollover between spouses or common-law partners be attributed back to the transferor. … Because the rollover provided for in subsection 73(1) deferred this accrued gain [of $1M] in its entirety, the whole of the gain realized on the sale to BW Technologies had to be attributed back to Mr. ...

Before so finding, Noël CJ stated (at paras 62, 65, 68 and 73): The Tax Court judge … concluded that subsection 97(2) is not frustrated when deferred recapture goes untaxed, so long as [the] holding period [set out in s. 69(11)] is met. …[S]ubsection 69(11) is found in subdivision f, “Rules Relating to Computation of Income” whereas 97(2) is found in subdivision j which deals with “Partnerships and Their Members”. … It therefore cannot be said that subsection 69(11) was introduced in order to target subsection 97(2) rollovers…. ...

Wild’s shares – and that no transaction had occurred so far for such PUC (or ACB) to be utilized. ... Dawson JA further stated (at para 45): … The purpose of the transaction is relevant when considering whether the transaction giving rise to the taxable benefit was an avoidance transaction (Copthorne, paragraph 40). ...

In finding that the oversight expenses paid to the investment dealers would also have been deductible under s. 20(1)(bb), he rejected the Crown’s submissions that such fees were “commissions” and that they were not in respect of a “specific security” because they were in respect of all the Pechiny or Novartis shares, stating (at paras 89-90, and 96-97): … In my view, neither “specific shares” nor “certaines actions” excludes the possibility that the provision applies to a sale of all of the shares of a particular issuer. ... She has not done so. … He also rejected the Crown's submission that s. 40(1)(a) should prevail over s. 20(1)(bb) as the more specific provision, stating (at para. 97) that "paragraph 40(1)(a) is no more specific than paragraph 20(1)(bb). ...

Webb JA stated (at para.29): … [T]he four factors that are to be considered in an application for an extension of time are: whether Akanda had a continuing intention to pursue the application to set aside the default Judgments; whether the application to set aside the default Judgments has some merit; whether there is any prejudice to the Crown arising from the delay from April 9, 2017 to July 25, 2017; and whether there is a reasonable explanation for this delay. ... Webb JA further concluded (at para 40): … Since the Order only addressed the application for an extension of time, the second part of Akanda’s motion, in which it requested an order setting aside the default Judgments, remains outstanding and will need to be addressed by the Tax Court. ...

Therefore, the revocation notice was a factual element that was necessary in order to support the legal basis of the income inclusion …. ... Clearly, this was not a factual basis on which the reassessment was based when it was issued, or when the limitation period expired. … [T]he Minister’s position impermissibly avoids the limitation period for the 2009 taxation year. ...