Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

., 83 DTC 5095, [1983] CTC 90 (FCTD)-- summary under Paragraph 239(1)(f) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 239- Subsection 239(1)- Paragraph 239(1)(f) It was stated, in connection with a case where the accused had corroborated the V-day value of land with false documentation, that: "I do not conceive how any precise finding of value dependent on the opinion evidence of experts in land valuation could be arrived at beyond a reasonable doubt [:] R. v. Gardner (1982) 66 C.C.C. (2d) 477 (SCC) '... the facts which justify the sanction are no less important than the facts which justify the conviction. ...

In refusing this request, Martineau J indicated that, under ss. 165(3) and 171, the Tax Court had the power to cancel an assessment, and stated: …The public interest — i.e. the orderly application of the ITA — takes precedence here over the financial and other inconveniences that the applicant may face by having, like all taxpayers, to follow the normal challenge procedure set out in the ITA. ...

Because it is not at all clear whether the Letter was directed to the Respondents individually or their connected entities, the first requirement of section 231.7 … for obtaining a compliance order has not been satisfied …. ...

After noting (at para. 20) the Vavilov test that the administrative decision under review must “exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency” and (at para. 39) the Saipem test of “a rational connection … between the information sought and the administration and enforcement of the ITA,” Fothergill J stated (at para 43, 45-47): No explanation has been provided for the absence of any time limits on the information sought in the Requirement, although the previous requests were all restricted to the taxation years under audit. No explanation has been provided for the absence of any limit on the number of agreements to be produced, the identities of the contracting parties, or the geographic regions to which they apply. … The CRA’s first request for information … was limited to agreements in force during the audit period. ... Nine criteria were provided, including location in an OECD member state, and the performance of tasks related to research, development and distribution. … The CRA has offered no explanation for the dramatic increase in the scope of the information sought in the Requirement. ...

In this regard, she noted: (at para. 293) that respecting the “seizure in this case [of] banking information that is turned over to the CRA by Canadian financial institutions … the mechanism of the seizure is minimally intrusive, suggesting that there is an objectively lower expectation of privacy …”, (at para. 306): The fact that the Plaintiffs and other U.S. persons have the pre-existing obligation to report their banking information to the IRS under American tax laws (as well as the obligation to file the FBAR reports that are required under the U.S. ... (at para. 316) that “one of the major purposes underlying the … enactment of the Impugned Provisions was to avoid the potentially catastrophic impact that compliance with FATCA would have for Canadian financial institutions, their customers and the Canadian economy as a whole [re the imposition of 30% withholding tax]” in seeking to avoid this result “it is doubtful that Canada could have negotiated a better deal with the United States” (para. 325) under the common reporting standard as codified in ITA Part XIX, “the sharing of taxpayer information between countries has received international acceptance,” para. 337), (at para. 338) that “The reasonableness of seizures that are carried out in accordance with the Impugned Provisions is further confirmed by the fact that the banking information in issue is shared with the IRS in confidence, in accordance with the provisions of the Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty. ” She then stated (at para. 349): I also agree with the Defendants that the benefit that would accrue to those affected by the Impugned Provisions by their ability to ignore their obligations under American tax laws is outweighed by the need to protect Canada as a whole from the economic consequences of FATCA. ...

In rejecting the taxpayer’s submission that CRA’s use of “stolen” information violated the taxpayer’s Charter rights, Russell J stated (at para. 64): The issues raised by the Applicant on this point were addressed … by the Quebec Court of Appeal [Berger, 2016 QCCA 226]. … The Quebec Court of Appeal affirmed the Quebec Superior Court’s decision that Mr. ...

. … Intentions can change, as can the scope of the proposed disclosure. … The potential scope of the Disclosure could not be determined without further investigation by Plaintiff and her counsel. … I agree with the Respondent that there is an important distinction between the date information is actually disclosed under the VDP and the date the taxpayer makes the decision to investigate the making of a disclosure. ... Gagnon or the VDP to accept his request for disclosure. … His requests sought to complete the record. ...

. … The order the Minister seeks does not meet the principle of proportionality. … The time and cost involved in allowing the Minister to interview more than 25 Cameco personnel scattered across the world is not proportional to the information being sought since the Tax Court of Canada will determine the issues that are the focus of the requested interviews. ...

However, in granting an extension of the 30-day period, he stated (at paras. 44-45): To grant an extension of time, there must be (i) a continuing intention to pursue the application, (ii) some merit to the application, (iii) no prejudice to the Respondent, and (iv) a reasonable explanation for the delay (Canada (AG) v Hennelly (1999), 244 NR 399 (FCA) …. The interests of justice can override an applicant’s failure to meet the Hennelly test …. ...

Pamel J referred in numerous places in his reasons for judgment to the “open court” principle, including the statement by the Supreme Court in Sierra Club, 2002 SCC 41, that “ [t]he link between openness in judicial proceedings and freedom of expression has been firmly established by this Court.” ... This means that he controlled the timing of this introduction. … [H]e had the option of asking the Court to make an order to protect any information he wished to keep private and confidential. … [S]ection 318 of the FCR should not be considered in isolation. Faced with a problem such as the one faced by Rémillard, the Court is capable of finding a solution that balances, to the extent possible, the objectives of meaningful review of administrative decisions, procedural fairness, and the protection of any legitimate interest in confidentiality while at the same time maintaining the open court principle …. ...