Search - 广东省2002政府工作报告 一小发展 金句

Agence du revenu du Québec, 2024 QCCQ 766, aff'd 2025 QCCA 745-- summary under Paragraph (c) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 169- Subsection 169(1)- Element B- Paragraph (c) conversion of 2 floors of building from commercial to residential use did not generate ITCs based on "cessation" of commercial activity Starting in 2002, St-Joseph incurred costs in converting the 1 st and 2 nd floors of a 12-storey mixed-use tower from commercial rental use into residences for rental to seniors. St-Joseph argued based on the QSTA equivalent of ETA s. 141.1(3)(a) that it had incurred the costs “in connection with the … termination of a commercial activity” of it, so that such costs were deemed to have been incurred in the course of its commercial activity. In rejecting this submission, and in confirming the denial of input tax refunds, Lachapelle JCQ stated (at paras. 93, 103, TaxInterpretations translation): [T]he intention of St-Joseph was that the work carried out on the first and second floors of the Building was to adapt the building for residential or lodging use of individuals. … The Court concludes that the concept of the cessation of an activity does not include the transformation of the activity. ...

Singapore Telecom Australia Investments Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation, [2021] FCA 1597, aff'd [2024] FCAFC 29-- summary under Paragraph 247(2)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 247- New- Subsection 247(2)- Paragraph 247(2)(a) arm’s length parties would not have agreed to a loan having a significant participation feature (but accepts a gross-up as commercial) In June 2002, a Singapore-resident company (“SAI”) transferred the shares of a recently-acquired Australian telecom company (“SOPL”) to an Australian subsidiary (“STAI”) in consideration for common shares and $5.2B in unsecured notes (issued pursuant to a note facility, the "LNAI") which had a term of approximately 10 years and bore interest at a floating rate equal to the 1 year bank bill swap rate (“BBSR”) plus 1%, but multiplied by a gross-up factor of 10/9 to reflect that the interest was subject to withholding tax. ... Before dismissing STAI’s appeal, Moshinsky J found that independent parties in the positions of SAI and STAI might have been expected to have agreed in June 2002 that the interest rate applicable to the notes would be the rate actually agreed (noting in this regard that the interest gross-up was “common in international borrowings” (para. 336). ... In particular, Moshinsky J noted (at paras. 309, 311 and 312): [T]he Second Amendment … had the effect that the interest that had accrued under the LNIA (approximately $286 million) was treated as not having accrued …. … I would not expect an independent party in the position of SAI to agree that the interest that had already accrued under the LNIA, which was a substantial sum, should be treated as not having accrued. … I would not expect independent parties in the positions of SAI and STAI to agree to the terms regarding benchmarks and the Premium. ...

ARQ, 2016 QCCA 962-- summary under Section 8 Summary Under Tax Topics- Other Legislation/Constitution- Charter (Constitution Act, 1982)- Section 8 search of law firm must demonstrate no alternative Hilton JCA applied the principle in Lavalee, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 209, para. 49, quoted at para. 43- that “before searching a law office, the investigative authorities must satisfy the issuing justice that there exists no other reasonable alternative to the search”- to invalidate a search warrant that had been given to the ARQ to search a Montreal law firm’s premises for documents relating to a client who was suspected of claiming input tax refunds/credits on fictitious inputs (so that the seized documents were ordered to be returned.) The information laid before the issuing judge had not addressed any absence of an alternative solution – and Hilton JCA also chided the ARQ for failure to disclose the “material fact” that the law firm in question was acting for the client in the tax dispute with the ARQ. ...

ARQ assessed on the basis that Wesdome’s related expenditure did not qualify as Canadian exploration expense under s. 395(c) of the Taxation Act (essentially identical to ITA, s. 66.1(6) – Canadian exploration expense – (f)(vi)), as being “any expense that may reasonably be related to a mine in the mineral resource that has come into production in reasonable commercial quantities or to an actual or potential extension of such a mine.” In confirming the finding of Godbout J below that Wesdome’s expenditures qualified as CEE, Levesque JCA first stated (at paras. 80-81, TaxInterpretations translation): [T]he judge … correctly concluded that the provisions of section T.A. paragraph 395(c) did not require that the exploration expenses were to be incurred respecting a “new mine” to be eligible for tax credits. … [I]f the legislator had wished the contrary, this could have been expressly provided in the provision. ... It is true that the judge assimilated this concept to the fact that the Kiena mine was “in practice … considered as closed.” ...

The basement unit (“9090”), which was accepted as representing 54% of the triplex, had been occupied by him for use as his residence and a home office since his purchase of the triplex in 2002. The two upper units (9092 and 9094, each representing 23% of the triplex), had been rented out by him to third parties until 2007, but he took the position that thereafter they represented personal use property of the taxpayer – although, for 14 months, he rented out one of the units to a friend at his stated cost of $400 per month- and, with the stated objective of improving the salability of the triplex, in 2011 he announced that 9094 was available for rent and leased it shortly before the sale of the triplex. ... Each must not be a distinct and autonomous unit; each must instead complement the other and lose to some extent its separate identity for the benefit of the whole. … [N]o transformation or modification of much significance was made to the Triplex in order for the three units to be linked in some manner to each other. … The units preserved their distinct character…. ...

Blank v Commissioner of Taxation, [2016] HCA 42-- summary under Paragraph 6(1)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 6- Subsection 6(1)- Paragraph 6(1)(a) payments under profit-linked phantom units in affiliate were ordinary income when received The taxpayer was employed by Glencore International AG (“GI”), an international commodity trading business incorporated in Switzerland, or a subsidiary from November 1991 to December 2006, with his employment in Australia commencing in 2002 when he also became an Australian resident. ... In finding that the Amount was income to the taxpayer under s. 6-5(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, which provided that a person's "assessable income includes income according to ordinary concepts, which is called ordinary income," the Court stated (at paras 59, 61, and 63): The terms of the IPPA 2005 expressly stated that the Amount was deferred compensation from Mr Blank's employment with Glencore Australia. … The Amount was paid as a lump sum as an additional reward to Mr Blank for the services he had performed for the Glencore Group. … The IPPA 2005 also recorded that Mr Blank had no interest whatsoever in the GS and did not acquire any right in or title to any assets, funds or property of GI, Glencore AG or any other subsidiary. … [A] GS granted no more than a claim to a cumulative portion of the balance sheet profit, and that the claim was granted not upon the issue or allocation of the GS to the employee but upon restitution of the GS at the time the employment ceased. … The fact that the Amount was paid after the termination of the contract of service, by a person other than the employer (here, GI) and separately to ordinary wages, salary or bonuses, does not detract from its characterisation as income if the payment is, as here, a recognised incident of the employment. ...

The basement unit, which represented 54% of the triplex, had been occupied by him for use as his residence and a home office since his purchase of the triplex in 2002. ... In confirming the ARQ’s reassessment made on the basis that only 54% of the taxpayer’s gain was eligible for the principal residence exemption, Breault JCQ stated (at paras. 57, 68 TaxInterpretations translation): Breault JCQ stated: [I]n order for two housing dwellings or units in the same immovable to be considered a single housing unit for the purposes of TA section 274 (or ITA 54), they must be sufficiently integrated, one with the other, such that the owner can benefit from full enjoyment of the entirety. … [N]o transformation or modification of much significance was made to the Triplex in order for the three units to be linked in some manner to each other. ...

Expense- Damages legal fees incurred to recover misappropriated funds were not capital expenditures The taxpayer (Mobile), which was owned by the Waibel family in Europe, sold its two Toronto properties in 2002 and 2003 for $7.3 million, with $7.258 million of that sum being diverted by one of its directors (Black) without the authorization of the family. ... The result: the receipt of amounts, as interest, that was not a capital transaction, and that was income arising from property, the property being Black's obligation arising from the misappropriation, as confirmed by the legally binding effect of a settlement. … The analogy with the Kellogg and Evans cases is not perfect, because the former involved a business and the latter involved income from a trust, but it is sufficient to convince us that an expense is not capital in nature simply because the expense is not recurring or extraordinary. ...

. … Splitting the ownership of the building and the ownership of 9118, which continued to operate the [residence], had only one goal, to minimize the taxes payable. ... Godcharles was the sole director of all aspects of the transaction, from the purchase of the land in 2002 to the sale in 2006, with all the other plaintiffs seemingly absent from the entire negotiation. ...

., 2021 QCCA 605-- summary under Legal and other Professional Fees Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 18- Subsection 18(1)- Paragraph 18(1)(a)- Legal and other Professional Fees legal fees incurred to recover a misappropriation of substantially all the taxpayer's assets were currently deductible The taxpayer (Mobile), which was owned by a German family, sold its two Toronto properties in 2002 and 2003 for $7.3 million, with most of that sum being diverted by one of its directors (Black), without the authorization of the family, by lending it at 2% interest to his company, which was or became insolvent. ... The ARQ reassessed to deny the deduction by Mobile of legal and accounting fees incurred by it in investigating the disappearance of the sales proceeds and in relation to the Superior Court action, primarily on the basis that they were capital expenditures (TA, s. 129, similar to ITA s. 18(1)(b) – although TA s. 128, similar to ITA s. 18(1)(a), was also invoked). ...