Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

Webb JA found that the taxpayer was estopped from now arguing that the amounts that she had treated as dividends in fact were not dividends (so that s. 160 did not apply to their payment)- because the appropriate procedures for the declaration and payment of the amounts as dividends were not followed and because s. 38(3) of the OBCA prohibited the payment of a dividend by an insolvent corporation – on the basis of the application of the principle (based on Wolofsky, 2001 FCA 119) that: [A] taxpayer who has benefited from having an amount included in his or her income as a dividend in a particular taxation year (and who has not objected to the assessment of tax based on having received this dividend) is estopped from claiming in any subsequent appeal related to the application of section 160 of the Act, that the previous filing position was wrong. ...

Webb JA found that the taxpayer was estopped from now arguing that the amounts that she had treated as dividends in fact were not dividends (so that s. 160 did not apply to their payment)- because the appropriate procedures for the declaration and payment of the amounts as dividends were not followed and because s. 38(3) of the OBCA prohibited the payment of a dividend by an insolvent corporation – on the basis of the application of the principle that: [A] taxpayer who has benefited from having an amount included in his or her income as a dividend in a particular taxation year (and who has not objected to the assessment of tax based on having received this dividend) is estopped from claiming in any subsequent appeal related to the application of section 160 of the Act, that the previous filing position was wrong. ...

Since section 18.5 of the Federal Courts Act only excludes the Federal Court from reviewing a decision when another Act expressly provides a right of appeal, this determination would lead to the finding that section 18.5 … is not a bar to the Federal Court judicially reviewing this decision of the Minister. ...

Bowker, 2023 FCA 133 under s. 162(7)(b), s. 220(3.1), Statutory interpretation- noscitur a sociis, General concepts – judicial comity and Rule 147(3)(d). ...

. … The doctrine of paramountcy, as argued by the appellants, cannot be engaged in the absence of conflict between the two provisions. ...

C.R. 1, should accordingly read: … if there is an expenditure which would be made in any case, from which [income] may accrue, the expenditure may be deducted; but an expenditure which will not be incurred unless there is [income] is not an expenditure in order to earn [income]. ...

. … Where a trust transfers property, it is a disposition. This is true even if the transfer is to a beneficiary or another trust with identical beneficiaries: subparagraphs (e)(i) to (iii) of the definition of disposition in s. 248(1). ...

Furthermore, since in light of s. 251(6)(b) “a marriage ends on the death of one of the individuals … [t]o have the same rules apply to individuals in a common-law partnership, that relationship would also have to cease upon the death of one of the partners” (para. 44). ...

. … She further found that the phrase "a right of any kind whatever" did not expand the ordinary meaning of "property" to include a non-exclusive, commonly held right to carry on a business, such as that held by the taxpayer. ...

(Noël, J.A. also noted (at para. 69) that the " the same terminal loss would have been realized if the limited partners, rather than proceeding with the transactions in issue, had simply dissolved the partnership and distributed the partnership assets to the partners. ...