Search - 微信撤回和删除的区别 官方

Article 73 of The Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 provided: In respect of the supply of goods or services … the taxable amount shall include everything which constitutes consideration obtained or to be obtained by the supplier, in return for the supply, from the customer or a third party …. In finding that there was a reciprocal supply of the dismantling services and the materials for consideration, the Court first stated (at paras. 39-40, 45): [I]t is clear from settled case-law that the consideration which is the taxable amount for a transaction has a subjective value … [being] the value which the recipient of services constituting the consideration for the supply of goods attributes to the services which he is seeking to obtain and must correspond to the amount which he is prepared to spend for that purpose …. ... Therefore, in such a case, reciprocal transactions are exchanged under the same contract, between the service provider and its client, so that a direct link … exists between the performance of the demolition works and the supply of the recyclable scrap metal. ...

To avoid this result, the trustees entered into an agreement with the Rémillard Brothers providing: The Trustees hereby undertake to exercise their powers … according to the directives provided by the Brothers and to make no decision regarding the Historia Trust without first obtaining the agreement of the Rémillard Brothers. … 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. ... Smith J found (at paras. 83, 104, TaxInterpretations translation), 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. ...

It argued based on the QSTA equivalent of ETA s. 141.1(3)(a) that it had incurred the costs “in connection with the … termination of a commercial activity” of it, so that such costs were deemed to have been incurred in the course of its commercial activity, thereby entitling it to input tax refunds under the Quebec equivalent of ETA s. 169(1) – B(c). In rejecting this position and before dismissing St-Joseph’s appeal, the Court stated (at paras. 4-5): [Its] argument … fails to explain how the transformation aimed at a new activity is, in itself, related to the termination of the previous activity. … [T]he expenses for the renovation and transformation into an RSR were not related to the termination of the commercial rental activity …. ...

Kvello Estate, 2009 SCC 51 established that one of the requirements for finding malicious prosecution was that “the prosecution was undertaken without reasonable and probable cause,” and noting that CRA had suspected that the Samaroos had failed to provide the “till tapes” for one of the daily shifts to the corporate bookkeeper, Harris JA indicated that here “The trial judge treated proof of the till tape theory, a particular scheme, as essential to proving the actus reus ” of the alleged s. 239(1)(d) offence (para. 57), whereas, in fact (para. 58): [T]he actus reus of the offence does not depend on proof of any particular method by which taxable income is not reported. ... Furthermore (at para. 72): … [T]he trial judge improperly reversed the onus of proof. ... Before allowing the appeal and dismissing the underlying action Harris JA, stated (at paras 81, 94, and 97): … [T]he Samaroos failed to prove an absence of reasonable and probable cause to initiate and continue the prosecution. … In my view, both the absence of declared income consistent with accumulating savings of the amount claimed and the apparent illogicality of holding cash rather than paying off expensive debt objectively casts doubt on the claim that the cash represented savings accumulated over a lengthy time. … Viewing the matter as a circumstantial case, the inculpatory facts are sufficiently enveloping to call for an exculpatory explanation of the origins of the cash deposits. … ...

. … Were it not for section 15 of ITTOIA, there would be no doubt that article 14, not article 7, would apply to Mr Fowler’s diving activities …. ... That is not how a deeming provision works generally, nor does section 15(2) in particular. … [S]ection 15 creates this fiction [that the diver is carrying on a trade] not for the purpose of deciding whether qualifying employed divers are to be taxed in the UK upon their employment income, but for the purpose of adjusting how that income is to be taxed, specifically by allowing a more generous regime for the deduction of expenses. … [I]t is plainly not for the purpose of rendering a qualifying diver immune from tax in the UK, nor adjudicating between the UK and South Africa as the potential recipient of tax. … [T]o apply the deeming provision in section 15(2) so as to alter the meaning of terms in the Treaty with the result of rendering a qualifying diver immune from UK taxation would be contrary to its purpose. ... This is because, as is recognised by article 2(1), the Treaty is not concerned with the manner in which taxes falling within the scope of the Treaty are levied. … ...

. … 4. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this article, the term “permanent establishment” shall be deemed not to include— … (e) the maintenance of a fixed place of business solely for the purpose of advertising, the supply of information, scientific research or any other activity, if it has a preparatory or auxiliary character in the trade or business of the enterprise …. ... Unfortunately, the ITAT … jumped to the conclusion that the Mumbai office was for coordination and execution of the project itself. ... Also… the Mumbai Project Office … would fall within Article 5(4)(e) of the DTAA, inasmuch as the office is solely an auxiliary office, meant to act as a liaison office between the Assessee and ONGC. … ...

Fitzpatrick J. then stated (at paras. 174, 176-177): I [disagree]… that Wesbild cannot exonerate itself by merely showing there is a potential legal argument that would support the filing position and that it must show what legal arguments were actually considered before the return was filed. … The CRA invites the court to infer that there was no consideration of the legal issues by reason of the fact that Mr. Kopstein’s opinion was not put into evidence. … …What that advice entailed is not before the Court. However, I was not referred to any authority… that, in considering this issue, Wesbild is compelled to waive its right to assert privilege …. ...

In confirming (subject to a minor variation) ARQ assessments which included the distributed income amounts in the income of the taxpayer under the Quebec equivalent of ITA s. 104(13) (TA s. 663), Bourgeois JCQ stated (at paras. 97-99, 108, TaxInterpretations translation): … Michael and Megan each acted as an accommodation party, whether as an agent or nominee, for their father. … Michael and Megan never had control of the sums that were paid to them by the Trust. … [T]he children had no idea at the time, or even today, what sums were distributed to them by their father for their own expenses. … Thus, since Caplan was also a Trust beneficiary, the facts demonstrate that it was he who appropriated most of the income distributed to the children and, as a consequence, TI section 663 applied to tax, in the hands of the plaintiff, the sums paid by the Trust to the children. ...

In confirming the inclusion of the distributed income amounts in the income of the father under the Quebec equivalent of s. 104(13), Bourgeois JCQ stated (at paras. 97-99, 108, TaxInterpretations translation): … Michael and Megan each acted as an accommodation party, whether as an agent or nominee, for their father. … Michael and Megan never had control of the sums that were paid to them by the Trust. … [T]he children had no idea at the time, or even today, what sums were distributed to them by their father for their own expenses. … ...

. … De Beers [CIT v. De Beers India Pvt. Ltd (2012) 346 ITR 467 (Kar), I.T.A. No. 35/2010]...posed the question, as to “what is [the] meaning of make available”… and proceeded...as follows: … [T]o fit into the terminology "making available", the technical knowledge, skill, etc., must remain with the person receiving the services even after the particular contract comes to an end. … The technical knowledge or skills of the provider should be imparted to and absorbed by the receiver so that the receiver can deploy similar technology or techniques in the future without depending upon the provider. Technology will be considered "made available" when the person acquiring the service is enabled to apply the technology. … [P]ayment of consideration would be regarded as "fee for technical/included services" only if the twin test of rendering services and making technical knowledge available at the same time is satisfied. … [I]t is not even the case of the Assessing Officer that the assessee, i.e. recipient of services was enabled to use these services in future without recourse to BT Canada. ...