Search - 微信撤回和删除的区别 官方

. … [A]lthough auditors are entitled to be provided with “all reasonable assistance” in performing their audits (paragraph 231.1(1)(d)…), they cannot compel taxpayers to reveal their “soft spots”. … After referencing financial reporting obligations of public companies under provincial securities legislation including the accurate reporting of accrued taxes and before noting concerns of CPA Canada that required disclosure to CRA of tax accrual working papers would reduce the candour of disclosures by companies to their external auditors, he stated (at para. 86): By enacting subsection 231.1(1), Parliament could not have intended to vest the Minister with a power so sweeping that it would undermine those obligations. ...

. … With respect to the interpretation to be given to the word "knew", this Court clarified that a subjective test must be used to determine whether the requisite knowledge exists. ... That said, it is not enough to proclaim ignorance to escape sanctions; common sense and objective factors may be taken into account in deciding whether a claimant has a subjective knowledge of the falsity of his or her statements. … Before remitting the file to the SST-AD for a fresh decision, De Montigny JA stated (at para 14): By implicitly endorsing the decision of the SST-GD that the intent to defraud would be required for a person to "knowingly" make a false or misleading statement, the SST-AD erred. ...

. … [61] …[A] taxpayer should have the burden to prove, on a balance of probabilities, any facts that are alleged by that taxpayer in their notice of appeal and that are denied by the Crown. ... Woods JA, in also dismissing the appeal, stated that she agreed with the comments of Stratas JA, who stated (at para. 70) that he found “much of what [Webb JA said] … to be thoughtful, illuminating and attractive”, but also (at para. 71) that he declined “to express a definitive opinion on the correctness of his views on this fundamental point.” ...

Respecting the conflict between ss. 142(1)(d) and 142(2)(d), which respectively deemed a supply of a service in relation to real property inside Canada or outside Canada to be made in Canada or outside Canada – so that a single supply here, which would have related to both, would have been deemed to be made both inside and outside Canada, Dawson JA found (at para. 95) that in this context of services in relation to a cross-border real estate portfolio, there were two supplies, so that the services in relation to the Canadian and foreign real estate were taxable and non-taxable, respectively: I see no reason in principle that precludes splitting up the supply so that the supply is treated as two supplies in order to recognize that ultimately the services are inherently distinct in one important respect: the services relating to the operation of the vacation homes located in Canada are services in relation to real property situated in Canada and hence are a taxable supply – the services relating to the operation of the Intrawest vacation homes situated outside of Canada are services related to real property situated outside of Canada and hence are a non-taxable supply. ...

Before ordering that the taxpayer was to be paid interest on the $12.75 million pursuant to s. 164(3), Webb JA stated (at paras. 26, 33 and 34): … [S]etting aside the Jeopardy Order in this case would mean that subsection 164(1.1) of the Act, should be read as if the Jeopardy Order had never been issued. ... Grenon’s appeal is that all or a portion of the refunded amount is still payable, there is no loss to the federal government if interest is paid on the refunded amount, absent any collection concerns. … There is a loss to Mr. ...

This was accomplished by setting up a sandwich structure immediately after the acquisition, under which a new Canadian unlimited liability company, capitalized with notes and high-PUC shares, held the shares of a U.S. corporation holding Univar Canada – so that such U.S. corporation could distribute the shares of Univar Canada (on a Treaty-exempt basis) to its controlling Canadian purchaser (the ULC) without technically being affected by the s. 212.1(1) deemed dividend rule. ... Whether the surplus of the Canadian corporation is removed by completing the alternative transactions described … above or by completing the transactions that were done in this case, the same surplus is removed from Canada. ...

In confirming the finding below that the appellant was a loan corporation, notwithstanding that it did not accept deposits from the public (as contemplated in for example, the use of that term under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act (Ontario)), Near JA stated (at paras 26, 27, 35): I agree … that the words loan corporation mean “a corporation that makes loans” (TCC Decision at para. 120). … There are no references in the text to regulated entities or to deposits. ...

Gervais’ income, Noël CJ stated (at paras 50 and 51): … Subparagraph 40(1)(a)(i) required that the ACB of the shares sold by Ms. ... That result, although it flows from the text of the relevant provisions, is contrary to the object, spirit and purpose of subsections 73(1) and 74.2(1), the purpose of which is to ensure that a gain (or loss) deferred by reason of a rollover between spouses or common-law partners be attributed back to the transferor. … Because the rollover provided for in subsection 73(1) deferred this accrued gain [of $1M] in its entirety, the whole of the gain realized on the sale to BW Technologies had to be attributed back to Mr. ...

Before so finding, Noël CJ stated (at paras 62, 65, 68 and 73): The Tax Court judge … concluded that subsection 97(2) is not frustrated when deferred recapture goes untaxed, so long as [the] holding period [set out in s. 69(11)] is met. …[S]ubsection 69(11) is found in subdivision f, “Rules Relating to Computation of Income” whereas 97(2) is found in subdivision j which deals with “Partnerships and Their Members”. … It therefore cannot be said that subsection 69(11) was introduced in order to target subsection 97(2) rollovers…. ...

Wild’s shares – and that no transaction had occurred so far for such PUC (or ACB) to be utilized. ... Dawson JA further stated (at para 45): … The purpose of the transaction is relevant when considering whether the transaction giving rise to the taxable benefit was an avoidance transaction (Copthorne, paragraph 40). ...