Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

Queen & Metcalfe Carpark Ltd. v. MNR, 74 DTC 6007, [1973] CTC 810 (FCTD), aff'd [1976] CTC xvi (FCA)-- summary under Paragraph 20(1)(dd) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 20- Subsection 20(1)- Paragraph 20(1)(dd) engaged in a business/zoning, traffic flows and markets would be included A company in the business of acquiring various properties and leasing them out for rental use was held to be earning business income rather than property income (notwithstanding that its "rental income was income from the property itself rather than... payment in substantial measure for services") in light inter alia of its corporate objects. ...

T & S First Choice Renovations Limited v. Canada Revenue Agency, 2012 DTC 5152 [at at 7377], 2012 FC 1146-- summary under Subsection 220(3.1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 220- Subsection 220(3.1) The taxpayer appealed the Minister's decision to deny relief of interest on corporate tax, payroll deductions, and GST accounts. ...

Peter Cundill & Associates Ltd. v. The Queen, 91 DTC 5085, [1991] 1 CTC 197 (FCTD), aff'd 91 DTC 5543 (FCA)-- summary under Paragraph 212(1)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 212- Subsection 212(1)- Paragraph 212(1)(a) The taxpayer, which was the portfolio manager of the Cundill Value Fund and the Cundill Security Fund (the "Funds"), contracted with a Bermuda company ("PCAB") for the investment counselling and transaction skills of F. ...

Peter Cundill & Associates Ltd. v. The Queen, 91 DTC 5085, [1991] 1 CTC 197 (FCTD), aff'd 91 DTC 5543 (FCA)-- summary under Paragraph 251(1)(c) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 251- Subsection 251(1)- Paragraph 251(1)(c) dependency on name fund manager and 50% owner The taxpayer, which was the portfolio manager for the Cundill Value Fund and the Cundill Security Fund was dependent upon Mr. ...

R & S Industries Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue), 2016 FC 275-- summary under Subsection 97(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 97- Subsection 97(2) drop-down agreement interpreted as preventing a re-allocation of boot to avoid gain A transfer agreement for the drop-down under s. 97(2) of assets by the taxpayer (R&S) to a controlled LP specified that the elected amounts in a joint s. 97(2) election, and the respective portions of the Purchase Price allocated to the transferred assets, would be the minimum agreed amounts permitted under the Act, “provided …that in respect of the Goodwill, the elected amount shall, unless otherwise agreed be equal to $2,502,600.” ...

Before granting the compliance order, Pentney J stated (at paras 18, 19, 29): … I reject the Respondents’ argument that section 289.1 can only be invoked where a taxpayer has “refused” to provide the requested information…. [T]he provision states that a compliance order may be granted if the Court “is satisfied that (a) the person was required under section 288 or 289 to provide the… information or document and did not do so…” (emphasis added). … … As noted in... ... In addition, the fact that the requests may involve substantial documentation which the taxpayer may view as not proportional to the matter is not a relevant consideration (para 42) … In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the CRA audit has been launched for any purpose other than to ensure compliance with the ETA, or that the request for information was so wide, extraordinary, or unusual as to give rise to questions about its legitimacy in the context of the audit (assuming that such a claim could be brought, in the face of the wide authority granted to the Minister to set the timing, scope, and nature of the audit …. ...

Before dismissing the Applicants’ applications for judicial review, Boswell J stated (at paras 55- 57): … [T]he sheer quantity of the delays did not automatically warrant interest relief. … The Delegate reasonably considered the length of the delays and recognized that certain time periods were not appropriate for interest relief and others had already been accounted for in the earlier reviews. … … [T]here were no circumstances beyond the Applicants’ control which prevented them with complying with their obligations to pay tax. ... If they paid the taxes owing as stated in the assessments, no interest would have accumulated. … … [F]or the 2014 Applicants … [u]nder subsection 220(3.1), the Minister no longer has discretion to cancel or waive interest beyond 10 years …. ... In Ludco … the Federal Court of Appeal held that evidence about other taxpayers who had benefited from an interest deduction for loans obtained in circumstances identical to those of the appellants was inadmissible…. ...

.” – although partial relief was provided by cancelling the penalty for 2012 but not 2011. ... The requirement to file a return for 2011 only arose when she decided to claim the CCTB in 2014. … … [I]t is clear the Delegate’s mistaken belief that Ms. Takenaka was required to file a timely tax return influenced his determination that she had not acted diligently. … I find the Decision lacks justification and is not intelligible. … The Applicant’s “ second-level ” request for relief was based in part on her claim of hardship. ...

GFP produced 10 episodes of the first season, but then was informed, two years after the preliminary ruling, that CAVCO’s opinion, after having viewed episodes, was to deny the CPTC on the basis that the Production had the features of a “game, questionnaire or contest” and was, therefore, excluded under Reg. 1106(1) – excluded production- s. ... Pentney J dismissed the application for judicial review, stating (at paras 70, 72, 74): … [I]t is clear that the opinion provides only a preliminary indication, based solely on the information provided by the producer, and that the final decision is based on an assessment of the actual production itself. … There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the decision was not made in good faith, that it constituted an abuse of power or that it otherwise violates the objectives of the legislation. As indicated in Zone 3, the “architecture” of the statutory scheme requires the Minister to determine whether a production is excluded; this is exactly what was done. … … I accept that in view of the architecture of the system, to use the expression of Justice de Montigny in Zone 3 at paragraph 31, those who want a certificate must spend money to embark on a production, with no guarantee that they will receive the benefit of a tax credit. … ...

Harris was informed that he had to file both his personal and business tax returns but that the business returns had to be filed first – and concluded that since this conversation had taken place before 405’s disclosure, that such disclosure was not voluntary. Before finding that the decision not to grant voluntary disclosure was unreasonable because it lacked transparency, so that the matter was to be returned to another decision maker for redetermination, Gleeson J stated (at paras 19, 22): The failure to address how enforcement action against one taxpayer would “likely” uncover information that is the subject of voluntary disclosure by another taxpayer undermines the elements of justification, transparency, and intelligibility. … … Neither the decision letter nor the “memo to file” engages in any analysis as to how the enforcement action against Mr. ... Simply looking at the relationship between the parties is insufficient …. ...