Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

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

T-919-16 … is an application for leave to impose a requirement on Citibank to disclose information regarding transactions involving Cayman National Bank and unnamed residents of Canada. ... Stephanie Henderson, [which] … describe how the CRA came to believe that the requirement could lead to the production of information regarding Canadian taxpayers’ undisclosed foreign assets and tax liability. … [I]nformation provided by Citibank as a result of this requirement brought Mr. ...

In rejecting the Bank’s submission that it was a bona fide purchaser for value, he stated (at para. 43) that “ I agree that the defence is not limited to "‘purchasers who obtain property through a contract of sale,” but then stated (at para. 46-47):" "[T]he 1998 and 2000 amendments to the ITA and ETA deemed trust provisions are based on the premise that a secured creditor cannot invoke the bona fide purchaser for value defence when it enforces its security or receives a payment from its debtor. … I would add that the defence remains available to unsecured creditors, such as suppliers, landlords or public utilities, who receive payments from a tax debtor. In those cases, denying the defence would give rise to the concerns mentioned by Justice Iacobucci at para 44 of First Vancouver – it "would have a general chilling effect on commercial transactions. ...

Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 1433-- summary under Section 18.5 Summary Under Tax Topics- Other Legislation/Constitution- Federal- Federal Courts Act- Section 18.5 taxpayer could not challenge a CRA residency determination that had not yet been assessed in the context of a VDP application that had not yet been accepted or declined The taxpayer, who left Canada for Chad in 2004 (followed by a stint in Iraq) and returned to Canada in January 2010, filed a voluntary disclosure application in July 2015 pursuant to which he filed tax returns for 2004 and 2010 to 2014 – but not for 2005 to 2009, taking the position that for those years he was a non-resident. ... Powell Ltd., at para 31). … [H]e cannot judicially review this particular tax process when there has been no assessment and no discretionary decision. … Once the assessments are issued by CRA and if the Appellant wishes to file an objection and appeal, then the Tax Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with whether he is a resident of Canada or not. ...

After noting (at para. 24) that in Connolly “the applicant had provided little detail as to why he made the mistake that resulted in his over-contribution and did not appear to have made any inquiries, whether with his accountant, his bank or his employer, to confirm his RRSP contribution room … [so that] the Federal Court of Appeal concluded that his error likely could not be said to have been a reasonable one”, Aylen J dismissed the taxpayer’s application for judicial review of the two-level decision of CRA declining to waive the tax, stating (at para. 26): While the Applicant asserts that his error was an honest mistake and that he did not knowingly intend to over-contribute, the test to be met under section 204.1(4) is the reasonability of the error made, not the innocence of the Applicant …. ... The onus was on the Applicant to ensure that he did not over-contribute to his RRSP and if there was any lack of clarity or understanding as [to] the contribution room available to him, the Applicant was expected to seek advice …. ...

Section 259 … simply does not lay out any criteria for the exercise of the Minister’s power to designate an entity as a municipality. By refusing to consider circumstances that fell outside the four corners of the information sheet, the Minister’s delegate essentially treated the latter as if it superseded the broad discretion granted by section 259 of the Act. … As the Minister’s delegate fettered her discretion, the decision is unreasonable. After noting that a regulation defining “government funding” for purposes of determining the relevant rebate rate for some of the non-municipal entities referred to in s. 259 was not relevant to designations as a municipality, Grammond J stated (at para. 39) that “[i]t is … difficult to see why the precise form of assistance matters and why creativity in structuring the relationship between government and providers of municipal services should be discouraged” and (at para. 40) that “no suggestion was made that designating the Society as a municipality would give rise to any form of tax unfairness.” ...

Later, CRA rejected a further Lemay submission that CRA could accept its additional refund claims by virtue of ss. 164(1)(b) and 152(3.4) – on the basis inter alia that s. 125.7(5)(a) limited the amount of the CEWS subsidy to the amount initially claimed by the taxpayer. ... In rejecting the claim that there was no chance of success, Régimbald J stated (at paras. 28, 30, TaxInterpretations translation): [I]t is not clear, in light of sections 125.7(5), 152(3.4) and 164(1)(b), considered together and which are the subject of the application for judicial review, that the ITA does not allow the Minister to accept an amended prescribed form as requested by the plaintiff. … [T]he defendant has therefore not discharged its burden of demonstrating that it is clear and obvious that the interpretation proposed by Lemay has no reasonable chance of acceptance …. ...

., that “unnamed persons” meant “unknown to the Minister” rather than “unnamed in the RFI” (para. 34), Southcott J stated (paras. 65, 74): [Judicial] explanation describes ss 231.2 (2) and (3) as affording protections against abusive investigations to the unnamed persons, not to the party who is the recipient of the requirement …. I also find particularly compelling the Respondent’s argument that the decision-maker could hardly have been expected to pursue an application under s 231.2(3), in an effort to satisfy the Court that the persons the Minister wished to investigate were ascertainable, when the identities of those persons were actually known to the Minister. … I find that it was reasonable for the decision-maker to have issued the RFIs without seeking judicial authorization in advance. ... As to some of the RFIs seeking material dating back 21 years, he stated (at para. 141) that “there is no statutory time limit within which to make a request for information under … s 231.2(1).” ...

. … [T]he purpose of subsection 220(2.1) is to blunt the unfairness that sometimes arises by strict application of the filing and notice requirements in the ITA. The Minister’s discretionary power under subsection 220(2.1) should not be unduly limited or fettered through an unduly narrow interpretation which the Minister unreasonably adopted and applied in this case. … Respecting an argument of the Minister (at paras. 57-58) that “subsection 165(3) explicitly requires a notice of objection before there can be a reassessment” and that “the discretion to waive a notice of objection under subsection 220(2.1) would be nonsensical due to lack of a remedy,” he stated (at paras. 58-59): Subsection 165(3) does not state that without a notice of objection, the Minister shall not or cannot reconsider an assessment, and there are situations under the ITA where the Minister is explicitly given the power to reassess without a notice of objection. … Moreover, subsection 220(2.1) specifically enables the Minister to request a document that has been waived. ...

The Minister refused on the basis that Cybernius’ T2 corporate income tax returns for 2013 and 2014 had not been filed – and that the credits also could not be used as Cybernius’ corporate income tax returns had not been filed within three years of the end of each relevant year. ... After finding that the Minister should not have retained the credit because there were outstanding notices of objection, McVeigh J further found (at para 48, 52, 53): … I find the decision not to grant the re-appropriation to be further unreasonable given that the decision was part of a continuous course of conduct and Cybernius became fully compliant during this time. Section 221.2(1) provides the Minister the discretion to re-appropriate amounts if the taxpayer does not have any outstanding returns. … Given that Cybernius is fully compliant, it is unreasonable for the Minister not to exercise their discretion to ensure the collection of the payroll source debt by using an existing tax credit. ...