Search - 微信撤回和删除的区别 官方

Here, that is visa status, a characteristic which depends on nationality – a person not being an Australian national – the very attribute protected by Art 25(1). … Discrimination jurisprudence establishes that the circumstances of the person alleged to have suffered discriminatory treatment and which are related to the prohibited ground are to be excluded from the circumstances of the comparator. ...

. … The idea that … a company, has a separate legal personality from its shareholders has been protected and reaffirmed from Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 onwards. ...

The shares of HHT would be transferred to Boulevard LP in exchange for REIT units – except that shareholders electing for rollover treatment would exchange their shares instead with Boulevard LP for Class B exchangeable LP units of Boulevard LP. ... While it might be stretching the point to contend that the holders of the common shares of HHT are receiving, in exchange, the securities of "another body corporate", even though Boulevard LP would be acting at the instance of its corporate general partner, Boulevard GP, given the pervasive use of real estate investment trusts in our contemporary economy, I conclude that the key operative portion of the plan – the exchange of securities – constitutes "any other reorganization or scheme involving the business or affairs of the corporation or of any or all of the holders of its securities or of any options or rights to acquire any of its securities that is, at law, an arrangement", within the meaning of OBCA s. 182(1) (h). ...

The Court found that, in light of considerations of procedural fairness, the Quebec equivalent of ITA s. 165(3) should be read as if it contained the additional bolded words noted below (para. 17): [T]he Minister shall … reconsider the assessment and … make a reassessment, and send the Minister's decision to the person by mail and to its designated representative, if any. ...

In finding that Houmet had no beneficial entitlement to the interest, Falk LJ first stated (at paras. 49, 52 and 54): [T]he concept of beneficial ownership is well established …. In essence, it means ownership for the benefit of the person in question …. ... There was no evidence to suggest that Houmet could have used the funds received for any other purpose [other than to pay for the assignment to it], or that it could benefit from them in any other manner. … Further, Houmet's involvement was entirely ephemeral …. ...

The "typical sources" of goodwill acknowledged in Murry were "typical sources" because " they motivate service or provide competitive prices that attract customers " (emphasis added). And Murry and the decision which preceded it, Box [(1952) 86 CLR 387], recognised that in the modern world, patronage – in the sense of customers through the door – was no longer the sole means of generating or adding value (or earnings) to a business by attracting custom. ... That unexplained gap suggests that the DCF calculations used by Barrick's valuers to value Placer's land, its principal asset, were wrong. … [T]he danger identified by the majority in Murry of attributing a value to goodwill which actually inheres in an asset was readily apparent. … At the acquisition date, Placer was a land rich company which had no material property comprising legal goodwill. … [italics in original] Words and Phrases goodwill ...

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.” ...

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.” ...

. … [T]he judge contrasted “auditing” and “investigation” … without noting that the audit powers themselves constitute powers of investigation, and without pausing to determine if the objective of the steps she described was to establish penal liability of the respondents. ...

BLP Group … held that to take out a loan does not involve a VATable transaction by the borrower at all, even if he pays interest: he is the mere recipient of a service provided by the lender…. ... Article 135 PVD provides that member states must exempt … "(b) the granting and the negotiation of credit and the management of credit by the person granting it;" and "(d) transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit and current accounts, payments, transfers, debts, cheques and other negotiable instruments, but excluding debt collection;…". ... She specifically held that the banking services were not peripheral to its deposit-taking business. … She concluded (at para 61): … I would dismiss this appeal. ...