Search - 屯门 安南都护府

After adverting to the Jarvis doctrine, he stated (at paras. 112-114, 120-121): [T]he primary goal of the intervention of the evening of June 12, 2014 was not merely to conduct a tax audit, but above all to avoid a destruction of evidence. … In such a case, an Anton Pillar order can constitute a judicial remedy …. A judicial authorization however is required [therefor] …. [A] requirement certainly cannot be used to disguise a seizure made without judicial authorization. In such circumstances, section 8 of the Charter … was infringed by the ARQ…. ...

Duval v Agence du revenu du Québec, 2023 QCCS 4739-- summary under Section 1010.0.2 Summary Under Tax Topics- Other Legislation/Constitution- Quebec- Taxation Act- Section 1010.0.2 Quebec Superior Court has jurisdiction to consider requests for judicial review of ARQ refusals to reassess consequentially on a federal reassessment The Quebec taxpayers did not object to ARQ reassessments that denied ½ of their claimed business loss for 2010 – but then successfully appealed to the Tax Court similar federal reassessments of that year. ...

In response to the Attorney General’s argument that “the Applicant has a right to free speech, not to subsidized speech” through the ability to issue charitable receipts, Morgan J stated (at para. 43): [T]he evidence is that the Applicant cannot function – or will have difficulty in functioning – in the absence of registered charitable status. ...

Ontario (Finance), 2021 ONCA 10-- summary under Absurdities Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Absurdities “the principle that governments have the right to legislate illogically” was “not … persuasive” As a result of being reassessed to deny the carryback of a loss, the taxpayer was required to pay the reassessed taxes – but, following success in its objection, later was refunded the tax. ... It is also not a principle of statutory interpretation to be readily invoked. … The language in s. 79(7) is not unambiguous when read in its entire context. While it is not necessary to resort to it in this case … there remains “a residual presumption in favour of the taxpayer” …. ...

. … …[As per] Robertson and Henley … it is only when the condition or contingency is met that such a benefit arises. ...

In finding that Maersk’s fees came within Article 9 rather than 13, Sikri J stated (at para 12): '[P]rofit' from operation of ships under Article…9 … would necessarily include expenses for earning that income and … [the] more so, when it is found that the business cannot be run without these expenses. This Court … has categorically held that use of [a] facility does not amount to technical services, as technical services denote services catering to the special needs of the person using them and not a facility provided to all. ...

. … [T] here is no evidence that the auditor … was authorized, in the course of her duties, to disclose it in whole or in part. ...

[T]he wide scope of "legal advice" … and the concept of "continuum of communications" must be taken fully into account. If the dominant purpose of the communication is … to settle the instructions to the lawyer then … that communication will be covered by LAP. ... The purpose of the email was modest: it was intended to show that … not all of the executives at CAA shared the approach suggested by Mr Haines' earlier email. ...

. … The taxable supply that triggers payment (and the duty to pay tax) was never provided because the agreement that contemplated it was disclaimed. ... If payment must be deemed to have been made and taxes collected, it stands to reason that the triggering event be the payment of the damages that replace what would otherwise have been paid. … Conversely, what the ARQ proposes – that the payment be deemed to have been paid years before- would create a fiction that is entirely arbitrary. ...

. … It was clearly an appurtenance to the detached home. … There is no requirement in ETA that the residential complex/residential unit exemption involve the transfer of an entire residential unit or a complete residency unit. This would be contrary to the “part thereof” language in section 123(1) of the ETA. … [T]he parties’ expectations with regard to the future demolition do not change the facts on the ground at the time of closing. ...