Search - 屯门 安南都护府

22 May 2025- 11:52pm Vortex – Tax Court of Canada characterizes purported SR&ED as routine engineering conducted by trial and error Email this Content In confirming the denial of the claim of the taxpayer that it had engaged in experimental development in building mobile direct-contact water heaters for use in fracking, Spiro, J. found inter alia that there was an absence of any expert evidence demonstrating technological risks or uncertainties which could not have been removed by routine engineering or standard procedures, and that the work could instead be characterized as routine engineering that was conducted by trial and error. ... The King, 2025 TCC 63 under s. 248(1) – SR&ED. ...

3 November 2024- 11:16pm Harvard Properties – Tax Court finds that s. 160 applied where the vendors were wilfully blind to their sale price reflecting non-payment by the purchaser of triggered asset-sale tax Email this Content A Calgary shopping mall was sold by Harvard Properties and the other co-owners to a third party (“Abacus”) in a share sale transaction but at a price representative the mall’s asset value and, thus, at a premium to its share-sale value. ... In rejecting the taxpayer’s submission that the assessment of it in the alternative under s. 245(2) was statute-barred because it was made beyond the normal reassessment period, Boyle J stated: [T]here is no “normal reassessment period” applicable to the application of the GAAR …. ... The King, 2024 TCC 139 under s. 160(1), s. 251(1)(c), s. 245(4), s. 245(2) and General Concepts – FMV- shares. ...

8 May 2014- 10:03am 2253787 Ontario – Tax Court of Canada finds that a purchase on behalf of a grey marketer cannot be done on an agency basis Email this Content A grey marketer acquired Canadian iPhones for export to Hong Kong, which was a prohibited market. ... Bocock J managed to conclude that because its intended use of the phones was contrary to Apple’s sale terms, the grey marketer lacked the "legal capacity" to purchase the phones – so that the buyers could not be considered to have purchased the phones as its agents. ...

8 September 2016- 11:26pm Chappell – Court of Appeal of England and Wales finds that a provision intended to provide relief for “real world…commercial transactions” was not available in a purely tax-driven structure Email this Content Patten LJ applied the Ramsay doctrine and, in particular, how it was expressed in UBS, to find that a tax scheme, which depended on accessing relief for manufactured overseas dividends, failed given that such relief was only “intended to benefit the parties to real-world, commercial transactions involving the lending of marketable securities and not to transactions which lack those characteristics and whose only purpose is to obtain tax relief.” ... Summary of Chappell v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2016] BTC 36, [2016] EWCA Civ 809 under General Concepts – Tax Avoidance. ...

2 November 2016- 11:44pm Tusk Exploration – Tax Court of Canada finds that Part XII.6 tax applies to CEE which is invalidly (as well as validly) renounced on a look-back basis Email this Content A Canadian exploration company argued that it was not subject to Part XII.6 tax on Canadian exploration expenses that it had purported to renounce under the look-back rule- but which were now admittedly not eligible for look back because the flow-through share investors were non-arm’s length – because the reference in Part XII.6 to CEE that it “purported” to renounce under the rule referred only to expenses which had been validly rather than invalidly renounced under the look-back rule. ...

1 December 2016- 12:09am Barejo – Federal Court of Appeal states that determining whether the notes in Barejo were debt for purposes of the ITA rather than s. 94.1 would be “an improper use of judicial resources” Email this Content The Federal Court of Appeal has dismissed the Barejo appeal – but on the grounds that the Rule 58 question posed to the Tax Court was whether the “notes” in question were debts for purposes of the Act rather than for purposes of s. 94.1 thereof. ...

15 December 2016- 1:22am Iggillis Holdings – Federal Court finds that there is no common-interest privilege exception to the loss of solicitor-client privilege in providing a legal opinion to another firm Email this Content Solicitor-client privilege over a tax-planning memo prepared for Abacus on a tax-structured purchase transaction by a tax lawyer was lost when the tax lawyer provided the memo in draft form to the vendors' tax lawyer, whose comments resulted in memo revisions. ... Iggillis Holdings Inc., 2016 FC 1352 under s. 232(1) – solicitor-client privilege. ...

19 February 2017- 11:42pm RevCon – Federal Court of Appeal finds that s. 231.7 continues to apply to non-lawyers Email this Content Stratas JA found that Chambre des notaires and Thompson did not invalidate s. 231.7, and that there the Supreme Court instead had merely “read down section 231.7 to exclude lawyers and notaries,” so that the taxpayer was required to disclose materials which were not covered by solicitor-client privilege. ... Revcon Oilfield Constructors Inc., 2015 FC 524, aff’d 2017 FCA 22 under s. 232(1) – solicitor-client privilege. ...

21 February 2017- 11:49pm Andrews – Tax Court of Canada finds that driving a car is not transporting it for GST purposes Email this Content The taxpayer arranged for drivers to drive back to Canada the cars of those who had suffered an incapacitating medical emergency in the U.S. ... VII, s.1(1) – freight transportation service. ...

10 April 2017- 1:44am Freitas – Tax Court of Canada finds that a s. 96(1.1) allocation of income from an accounting firm was business income rather than a retiring allowance Email this Content A retired Deloitte partner received an opinion from his firm that professional income allocated to him under ITA s. 96(1.1) was a retiring allowance and thus excluded from being subject to CPP contributions, and also relied on the CRA opinion in 9527946 that: Income allocated pursuant to subsection 96(1.1)… for the purposes of the CPP provision is not considered to be from a business carried on by the retired partner and consequently such a partner is not required to contribute to CPP solely as result of receiving such income. ... The Queen, 2017 TCC 46 under s. 248(1) – retiring allowance. ...