Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

The Queen, 78 DTC 6028, [1978] CTC 113 (FCTD)-- summary under Separate Existence Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Separate Existence "... ... Salomen & Co. ([1897] 2 A.C. 22)..." (p. 6038) ...

But it is another for the Minister to then herself claim that the minor error undermines the validity of her own document to avoid adherence to it, when all other data points of the form are entirely accurate …. ... Diner J went on to state (at para 108): The non-payment of interest in these circumstances runs counter to … Grenon. ... He concluded (at para. 112): … I find that the current jurisprudence supports a finding that interest must be paid on the Principal Amount. ...

S. 6(b) of Art. 303 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (“ NAFTA”) permitted duty relief where imported goods that were subsequently exported were in “the same condition” as when they were imported. ... Rather, the applicant is filling the empty plastic containers with another product – the body care and sunscreen products. As the officer explained in his November 30, 2018, email, by filling the empty containers with these products and then closing them with caps or lids, the applicant is “creating a new product” … of which the container products are a part. ...

., 2019 FC 506, aff'd 2020 FCA 85-- summary under Subsection 231.2(3) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 231.2- Subsection 231.2(3) authorization of CRA requirement for a construction material company to disclose its customers with significant purchases Pursuant to ITA s. 231.2(3) and ETA s. 289(3), the Minister sought the following information about residential and commercial construction contractors having an account with the Respondent (“Roofmart”) and for whom the total annualized purchases were $20,000 or greater for the 4 ½ year period covered (and “Unnamed Persons Requirement”): (a) Identifying information (e.g., name, address, phone number and contact person); (b) The business number, if known; (c) The Customers’ itemized transaction details including invoice date, invoice number, total sales amount, method of payment, and address of delivery, and (d) All bank account information for the Customers (including transit, institution, and account numbers) from credit applications and/or otherwise maintained by Roofmart in its records. In rejecting Roofmart’s submissions that authorization of the Unnamed Persons Requirement should not be granted, Campbell J stated (at para.11) that the unnamed persons were an ascertainable group as “the total annual purchase requirement set out in the Unnamed Persons Requirement is sufficient to establish the target group of residential and commercial contractors among Roofmart’s customers,” and (at para. 13) that the Unnamed Persons Requirement had been established to had been “made to verify compliance by the person or persons in the group with any duty or obligation under the ITA and ETA ” e.g., verifying that the unnamed persons had filed all of their required income tax returns and calculated and remitted GST/HST. ...

...

In dismissing the taxpayer’s application for judicial review, Strickland J stated (at paras. 23, 27, and 40): [T]he Supreme Court of Canada has held that estoppel … “is of no assistance to a litigant who wishes to avoid the application of a clear legislative provision” …. [T]he Minister’s Delegate disallowed the Adjustment Requests in applying a “clear legislative provision”, that is s 8(1)(b) of the ITA, and was therefore not estopped from rendering the Decision. … [T]he February 14th Letter was a proposal that did not establish the Applicant’s substantive rights or obligations and was not a final decision, … Even though the February 14th Letter erroneously proposed to allow the Adjustment Requests, the Minister’s Delegate had no discretion and was compelled to apply s 152(4.2) of the ITA in accordance with the parameters set out in s 8(1)(b). ... Where the facts and the law demonstrate liability for tax, the Minister must issue an assessment” (JP Morgan at para 77) …. ...

In dismissing the taxpayer’s application for judicial review of the Minister’s decision to impose the penalties, Shirzad J stated (at paras 37, and 38): … If taxpayers could re-characterize taxable income or benefits as non-taxable benefits in their applications to the VDP and thereby escape penalties from future audits for having “disclosed” the amounts in this application, it would be contrary to the purpose of the VDP and its public policy rationale, which is meant to promote compliance with Canada’s tax laws by encouraging taxpayers to voluntarily come forward and correct previous omissions in their dealings with the CRA. … [T]he potential assessment of penalties even after an acceptance to the VDP will encourage taxpayers to be more diligent in their VDP applications, and to ensure that they exercise a high degree of care when submitting their VDP applications to ensure completeness and accuracy. … [T]o interpret the Information Circular as promising protection from penalties even on the non-taxable amounts disclosed by the taxpayer would put taxpayers applying to the VDP in a better position than the ordinary taxpayers. … Given his background, the Applicant was knowledgeable about tax matters, and it raises suspicions as to whether the Applicant may have been attempting to avoid penalties on his loans by characterizing them as non-taxable, but including them in his VDP application. ...

. … If the Respondent’s position were accepted, it would mean that, given the government’s intent to deal with offshore tax offenders, every Canadian taxpayer with an offshore bank account would be immune from compliance with the audit requests made under s 231.1(1) because this could lead to criminal proceedings at some time in the future. … [A] mere suspicion does not change the predominant purpose of an audit into a criminal investigation. See Jarvis …. ...

In finding that the decisions of the Minister’s delegate to deny relief were reasonable, Shirzad J stated (at paras. 49, 54): … I agree that the Applicant’s use of funds for an alternative and unrelated purpose, i.e., the prioritization of its GST/HST payments, does not justify non-compliance. ... This conclusion is compounded by the CRA Appeals Team Leader’s confirmation that the CRA did not misinterpret subsection 168(1) of the ETA…. … [S]ubsections 152(1)(a) and 168(1) of the ETA clearly indicate that the Applicant’s GST/HST payments are due on the date in which the Applicant issues its invoices. … [I]t was reasonable for the CRA Appeals Team Leader to find that the Applicant has no justifiable excuse not to remit GST/HST upon issuing an invoice, or to use payroll remittances to offset those payments. ...

Dominelli (who had claimed $139 million in deductions from two leveraged insurance annuity arrangements) to provide related documents, Dominelli and the Minister made a written agreement that Dominelli would provide an affidavit with appended documents that was to certify with particulars that he and his advisors had canvassed their records for the requested documents – and that if the Minster was not satisfied with the affidavit, she would ask that judgment be delivered on the compliance application (until then, held in abeyance). ... Pentney J stated (at para. 59) that he agreed “with Dominelli that the scope of the Minister’s discretion to determine that she is not satisfied that he has discharged his obligations under the agreement must be limited by the terms of their agreement ….” However, he went on to find that Dominelli’s affidavit did not demonstrate that he had met his obligations under the agreement, stating (at para. 79): [T]he gap between what Dominelli promised to do and what his affidavit states is striking. … [H]is evidence does not establish that he has met the specific and detailed terms of the agreement and the Undertaking that he negotiated, and thus his motion cannot succeed. ...