Search - 微信撤回和删除的区别 官方

The judge below concluded that all SKAT's claims were inadmissible as a consequence of the revenue rule (“Dicey Rule 3”), which was expressed as follows by Sir Julian Flaux, Chancellor as follows (at para. 1): English courts have no jurisdiction to entertain an action … for the enforcement, either directly or indirectly, of a penal, revenue or other public law of a foreign State. ... It is a claim to recover monies which had been abstracted from SKAT’s general funds by fraud. … [T]he fraud here was not fraud by the taxpayer in evading tax. There was no tax due and those who committed the fraud were never taxpayers. … [W]hat SKAT is saying entitles it to repayment is not that the … Applicants or the alleged fraud defendants owe it tax or have cheated it out of tax, but that it was induced by fraudulent misrepresentation to pay away monies to these persons to which they were not entitled on any basis. ...

The statutory language (quoting for convenience from s. 120.4(5)) relevantly required that an “amount can reasonably be considered to be attributable to a taxable capital gain … of a trust from a disposition of shares … that are transferred, either directly or indirectly, in any manner whatever, to a person with whom the specified individual does not deal at arm's length….” ... [S]ection 766.7.2 can only be interpreted and have meaning when there are two legal transactions related to the shares, namely, first, the disposition of the shares that will subsequently be transferred to generate an amount that could reasonably be considered to be attributable to a taxable capital gain …. ...

However … assumptions pleaded must be the assumptions actually made …. ... He further stated (at para. 60): I endorse the principle … in Preston that tax assumptions containing statements of mixed fact and law will not be invalidated simply on that basis if the factual underpinnings are clearly stated, there is no dispute about the legal principles and no prejudice results. ...

. … The fact that there was no certainty that the Oxxio business would be sold does not make the expenditure revenue in nature. … Indeed, expenditure on an abortive capital disposal transaction is capital expenditure nonetheless …. ...

Profit- Real Estate conversion of bush lot into fully serviced housing lots was a business – cf. if merely subdivided The taxpayer (Moluch) acquired 55 acres of bushland in 1937, part of which he cleared and farmed. ... He took the raw land which he owned and by the expenditure of money and effort he ended up possessing a number of fully serviced residential lots for sale. … The facts in the McGuire case [56 DTC 1042] are distinguishable … in that there the effect of filing a plan of subdivision was merely to divide the land into a number of smaller parcels which were sold piecemeal without effecting any physical change in the land, whereas in the present appeal, the character of the raw land was changed to that of serviced lots by the expenditure of considerable effort and money, in addition to the land being divided into a number of smaller parcels. ...

. … [I]n Daishowa-Marubeni …Nadon J.A. [stated]: … if the parties to an agreement attribute a value to a future liability, then the Minister is entitled to add this amount to the vendor's proceeds of disposition- whether or not the liability assumed by the purchaser is contingent or absolute. ...

The Trustees acknowledge that this commitment … does not constitute a delegation of their fiduciary powers. … If the Trustees or any of them disagree with the directives received from the Rémillard Brothers, they must then resign …. ... Article 1275 of the Civil Code of Quebec (the CCQ) provided: The … beneficiary may be a trustee but he shall act jointly with a trustee who is neither the settlor nor a beneficiary. ... However, he went on to find (at paras. 83, 104), in light of the testimony that the independent trustees, although consulting with the Rémillard Brothers, had in fact been making the trust decisions: Even if clauses 2.1 and 2.2 of the Agreement were contrary to the trust deed and Article 1275 of the CCQ … the Court concludes based on the preponderance of the evidence submitted that the Rémillard brothers did not act as trustees or “de facto trustees.” … [D]espite the Agreement, the Rémillard brothers did not, in fact, usurp the trustees' powers. ...

Other than this table, the appellant did not file supporting documents regarding the percentages set out therein, be they time sheets, SR&ED progress reports, correspondence, minutes of meetings, internal notes or emails related to these tasks, nor did it … call any of the employees from these two groups as witnesses to support these percentages …. The Court found no reviewable error in the finding below that the taxpayer had thus failed to “demolish” the ARQ assessments by making out a prima facie case, that the ARQ’s premise — of the taxpayer not having shown that the reported portions of each employee’s salary could reasonably be attributed to the prosecution of SR&ED — was false. ...

Callidus indicated that the “proposal provisions in the BIA serve … the same remedial purpose as those in the CCCA – i.e., the financial rehabilitation of an insolvent corporate debtor” and “to the extent possible, the two statutes should be treated in a harmonized fashion” (para. 46). Regarding BIA s. 50.6(3), which was the basis of the “judge’s power to establish the rank of the charge to secure an interim loan” (para. 49), and provided that the “court may order that the … charge rank in priority over the claim of any secured creditor,” the arguments of Attorney General that this provision had no application because s. 227(4.1) did not create a security interest, “it would seem nonsensical in the overall scheme of the BIA that a court could order that the interim lending charge take priority over the claim of any hypothecary or mortgage creditor but not over the claim of an unsecured creditor benefiting from a sui generis non-proprietary right akin to a floating charge, that is, the ITA Deemed Trust” (para. 51). ...

Although commercial gambling was not governed by specific VAT provisions, the jurisprudence had recognized (para. 9): “It is … only the net sum retained by the promoter after deduction of winnings which may be included in the taxable amount for VAT purposes.” ... Lord Legatt stated (at para. 48): What is required … is a change in the consideration actually received by the supplier. … All that has happened is that the taxpayer has had second thoughts about how the consideration received at the time of the supply should be analysed for tax purposes. Before so concluding, he noted (at para. 30) that it was “clear that there can be only one correct method of calculating the taxable element of fees charged to customers for playing cash bingo and … this was the session by session method and not the game by game method.” ...