Search - 微信撤回和删除的区别 官方

These are set out in Happy Valley Farms …. …[O]ne of the considerations that is listed as a relevant factor is the frequency or number of other similar transactions completed by the taxpayer. While it would be presumed that Atlantic Packaging would not be frequently selling off an entire division, there is no indication of whether Atlantic Packaging followed a similar pattern or similar transactions in disposing of other depreciable property. … [T]he absence of this evidence is sufficient for this Court to reject Atlantic Packaging’s argument that this new issue should be considered by this Court. The Crown has been deprived of any opportunity to explore the facts related to the frequency or number of similar transactions …. ...

Canada, 2020 FCA 118-- summary under Subsection 207.06(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 207.06- Subsection 207.06(2) FCA would be prepared to consider whether any broad discretion of CRA to waive tax was unconstitutional The taxpayer, who had been assessed TFSA advantage tax under s. 207.05, and was unhappy with the amount of the tax that the Minister had ultimately offered to waive under s. 207.06, brought a Rule 58(1) application to the Tax Court, which asked whether s. 207.05 offends s. 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867 – with counsel arguing that in light of the potential waiver under s. 207.06 “the Minister sets the rate of tax, not Parliament, and this offends section 53” (para. 4). ... In describing where assistance was needed, he stated (at paras. 13-15): [A]fter a full examination of the text in light of its context and purpose, the Court might conclude that Parliament’s provision, in its authentic meaning, satisfactorily constrains the Minister’s discretion and defines what she can do and how she should do it. … But in other cases, the Court might conclude that Parliament’s provision, in its authentic meaning, gives the Minister an unconstrained, undefined discretion without criteria. ... They would not fix the fatal problem: Parliament’s over-delegation of taxation power in the first place contrary to section 53 …. ...

In affirming the Tax Court’s finding that CRA could reassess those years beyond the normal reassessment period, Webb JA first found that the Crown had made out a prima facie case that the withdrawals were income to the taxpayer, and that this then permitted the Tax court to draw an adverse inference regarding the taxpayer’s failure “to call his accountant or bookkeeper, or presenting a properly completed shareholders’ loan account reconciliation” (para. 48) – hence, there had been a misrepresentation. ... However, Webb JA reversed the imposition of a gross negligence penalty, stating (at paras. 63, 76-77): Conduct that would be tantamount to intentional acting to avoid the payment of taxes on money that is withdrawn from a corporation is different from careless or neglectful conduct that results in a person being taxed for receiving a benefit from that corporation in statute-barred years. … The fact that M.D. ... Consulting. … Mr. Deyab’s failure to maintain proper records that might have established that M.D. ...

Before dismissing the appeal, Woods JA stated (at para. 18): … [T]he valuation report makes it clear that the report was intended to influence prospective purchasers. ... As for its purpose, the Department of Finance has expressed concern about “abuses through aggressive tax shelter promotions” … The concern expressed by the government would be frustrated if the legislation were applicable only to certain types of promotions. She went on to find (at para. 25) that even though the tax opinion in the valuation report only explicitly opined that the software was Class 12 property and was available for use- and not that its cost could be deducted over two years: … The Tax Court did not err when it concluded that prospective purchasers would reasonably consider that the report indicated that they could deduct the purchase price over the period allowed for Class 12 property that is available for use. ...

Canada, 2020 FCA 90-- summary under Consistency Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Consistency presumption of the same meaning Before finding that a marginal note to s. 149(1)(c), which paragraph had similar wording to s. 149(1)(d.5), illuminated the interpretation of the latter provision, Mactavish JA stated (at para. 56): [I]t is … a basic principle of statutory interpretation that where the same words appear in different parts of a statute, the presumption is that they are to be given the same meaning: R. v. Zeolkowski, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1378 … at para. 19. ...

The Queen, 94 DTC 6050, [1994] 1 CTC 3 (FCA)-- summary under Onus Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Onus demolition of assumptions by taxpayer leaves Minister with the ordinary civil-suit persuasive burden After rejecting the taxpayer’s submission that where some of the Minister’s assumptions were demolished by the taxpayer, the Minister’s position must necessarily fail unless the Minister can show that the remaining undemolished assumptions by themselves support the assessments, Hugessen JA went on to state (at p. 6053) that where the Minister has pleaded assumptions or the assumptions have been rebutted, “it remains open to the Minister … to establish the correctness of his assessment if he can” and that “in undertaking this task, the Minister bears the ordinary burden of any party to a lawsuit, namely to prove the facts which support his position ….” ...

In the course of rejecting the taxpayer’s appeal, Noël JA stated (at para 2): … In our view, having requested additional information from the appellant and not having received that information, and having requested a waiver from the appellant which the appellant refused to give, the Minister was clearly entitled to issue a reassessment to protect his rights prior to the expiry of the three-year period. … ...

This … is not a basis for relief.… [I]t is “well settled that a taxpayer does not become entitled to relief simply because another taxpayer similarly situated was assessed differently” (Roy v. The Queen, 2011 TCC 299 …). ...

Woods JA has found that this position is incorrect, stating (at paras. 40, 42): The CRA’s view … is that the taxpayer relief provisions cannot affect a filing requirement which restricts the issuance of a dividend refund. The problem with this reasoning is that this is exactly what the taxpayer relief provisions are intended to do — enable the Minister to provide relief from strict filing requirements.... ...

Canada (Border Services Agency), 2021 FCA 82-- summary under Ordinary Meaning Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Ordinary Meaning rebuttable presumption that the ordinary meaning of a word should prevail over its industry meaning After noting that the ordinary meaning of refrigerator did not require that the device be used for the storage of food, Locke JA rejected a taxpayer submission that a wine cooler was not a refrigerator notwithstanding that there was “no dispute … that the industry does not treat wine coolers as refrigerators” (para 7), stating (at para. 20): I do not wish to suggest that the ordinary meaning of a term should always apply even where it has a meaning in the industry. But there is a presumption to that effect, and that presumption is not rebutted by the mere fact that the industry meaning of the term in question differs from the ordinary meaning. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­ ...