Search - 微信撤回和删除的区别 官方

Before reversing the decision below that the masters were Class 8(j) tangible capital property, and in effectively confirming the ARQ position that they instead were eligible capital property (now Class 14.1) property, Schrager JA referenced s. 18 of the Copyright Act, which provided that “the maker of a sound recording has a copyright in the sound recording, consisting of the sole right to … [inter alia] reproduce it in any material form,” and then stated (at para. 31): There are intangible rights … as described in section 18 … which were purchased in association with the physical tapes. ... The value is found in what is recorded on the plastic or cellulose and what Respondent can do with it – i.e. make and sell good quality copies, albeit subject to respect of the composers and publishers copyrights by the payment of royalties. ...

Warren J noted (at para. 22): RJR-MacDonald … [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311 … sets out the three-part test for determining whether a court should exercise its discretion to grant an interlocutory injunction: is there a serious issue to be tried; would irreparable harm result if the injunction were not granted; and is the balance of convenience in favour of granting the interlocutory injunction or denying it. ... She found (at para. 35) that she was: satisfied that the Federation has established at least two types of irreparable harm that would result if the injunction sought is not granted: • if confidential or privileged information is disclosed as a result of legislation that is ultimately found to be unconstitutional, individual clients will be irreparably harmed by the loss of professional secrecy, which cannot be undone, and the prospect of that occurring will have a chilling effect on the ability of individual clients to consult with their lawyers fully and freely pending a final determination of the constitutional challenge; and • the potential for the unconstitutional reporting of confidential and privileged information, and the conflicts of interest between lawyers and their clients that will arise as a result of potentially unconstitutional legislation, would irrevocably damage the solicitor-client relationship and harm the public interest by undermining the public’s confidence in an independent bar. ...

Logan J observed (at para. 89): There is just no doubt that an Australian national cannot hold a working holiday visa issued under the Migration Act …. ... A resident “national” of Australia undertaking the same work as did Ms Addy … would have the benefit of the tax free threshold. … Materially, so far as the applicable rate of tax is concerned, the Rates Act distinguishes between individuals on the basis of the type of visa which that individual holds. ... That is exactly the type of discrimination which is prohibited by Art 25(1) …. ...

Thus, Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Murry explained that "the legal right or privilege to conduct a business in substantially the same manner and by substantially the same means which in the past have attracted custom to the business" is recognised as "property" – traditionally described as "goodwill" – which can be conveyed by a seller to a purchaser, so as to remain the property of the purchaser within the protection of the law for so long as the purchaser in fact conducts substantially the same business in substantially the same manner. ...

. … Moreover, a close reading of section 225(4)(c) … permits the input tax credit claims to be filed no matter how late the HST may be charged in connection with the subject transaction(s), provided that the HST was not originally charged by the vendor/supplier and the CRA has subsequently assessed the vendor/supplier for that outstanding HST. … ...

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. ...