Search - 微信撤回和删除的区别 官方

. … Corporate decisions and acts can only be achieved in explicit ways…. ... (emphasis added) Beazley P went on to say (91 NSWLR at 430-431 [84]): Whilst Barrett J’s opinion that entry into a contract must be apparent in some concrete way may be accepted, there can be no question that, as McHugh JA (Hope and Mahoney JJA agreeing) held in Integrated Computer Services Pty Ltd v Digital Equipment Corp (Aust) Pty Ltd (1988) 5 BPR [97326] at 11,117: “… a contract may be inferred from the acts and conduct of parties as well as or in the absence of their words. ... The conduct of the parties, however, must be capable of proving all the essential elements of an express contract. ” (citations omitted) (emphasis added) The significance of the emphasised passage from McHugh JA’s reasons is that the task for the fact finder … where there is no document recording an alleged contract, is to examine the acts and conduct relied on in the context in which they occurred to ascertain whether objectively they evince a contract. … ...

RQ did not accord any of the Jarvis protections to the company and its CEO, because it had no intention of criminally prosecuting – it was content to impose the equivalent of s. 163(2) penalties (in addition to the tax) – as did CRA, a year later, following the RQ lead. ... However, he stated that he could not “condone … a practice” of using a “treasure trove of ready-made files for ‘investigation’ and prosecution containing uncautioned conscripted evidence,” as “otherwise, the Jarvis protections simply melt away” (paras. 297-8). ... In order to ensure that the taxpayer’s constitutional rights are respected, such a broad discretionary decision must have a built-in mechanism by which it ensures that the taxpayer will not later be prosecuted on the basis of the fruits of such an expansive audit. … Considered as a whole, the history of this investigation directly harms the integrity of the justice system and irreparably compromised the community’s sense of fair play and decency. ...

The Board first recognized the common law position (also referred to in the Cadillac Fairview decision, which it referred to) that: Ownership of land confers rights in the air space above the lands and in the subsurface below the land. … [T]he subject properties’ undeveloped air space is part of the land/real estate/real property. ... Since they are not land, they cannot be a “portion of a parcel of land” eligible for a subclass. … The air spaces above the subject properties have not been severed and alienated separately by a strata plan. They are not capable of standing on their own as land. … The evidence is that the transfers of density rights are dealt with by agreements between parties and not by transfers of land under the Land Titles Act or Registry Act. … There is no doubt that the density rights to a property have a value and that this value must be considered in determining the current value of the properties. ...

., on the basis of their being attributed to a Malaysian PE – although, in fact, the Malaysian tax authorities accepted that PSC had no Malaysia-source income and was not taxable there. ... The group owned all or part of three office towers in a complex in Malaysia, and PSC argued that the office space allocated to its Malaysian branch could change from one tower to another depending on operational needs – so that the three towers should be considered a single site. ... However, in this case, nothing has been provided to that effect, and the appellant itself has provided information that calls into question the existence of management activity that would have been carried out … in Malaysia. ...

Before finding that the Trusts were managed and controlled by Grad and the CFO of the Grad group of companies (“Handelsman” – also an Ontario resident), so that the Trusts were resident in Ontario rather than Alberta, Wilton-Siegel J noted (at para. 93) that the in the context of an investment trust “the principal decisions taken by trustees pertain to the investment of the assets of the trust and distributions to beneficiaries,” and stated (at paras 94, 96, 103): … [T]he Trustees were not skilled in investment matters and did not profess any skill in this regard. … [M]anagement and control of a trust may rest with a trustee who has little investment experience provided that the trustee has the power to retain others for advice and remains the ultimate decision-maker. … In my view, the mere retention by trustees of the ability to retract a prior delegation of investment decision-making authority is not sufficient to establish that management and control of the investments of the trust is exercised by the trustees where investment decisions are actually taken on a day-to-day basis by, or are otherwise subject to the control of, the delegee. Wilton-Siegel J found that Grad had effective control over investments of the Trusts stating, for instance, respecting the Cal Equities arrangement (para 125): … [T]he effect of the Cal Equities transaction was to place oversight responsibility for the investment managers firmly in the hands of Grad. ... As to the closely-held investments, Wilton-Siegel J found (at para 196): … By appointing Grad the sole director of Markham and Herrad, the Trustees effectively gave Grad the power to control the payment of any distributions from Markham Suites and Herrad and, therefore, the power to control the principal sources of income of the Family Trust and the Spousal Trust, respectively. ...

Convention provided: … United States tax paid under the law of the United States and in accordance with this Convention … in respect of income derived from sources in the United States by …a resident of Australia shall be allowed as a credit against Australian tax payable in respect of the income. … Subject to these general principles, the credit shall be in accordance with the provisions and subject to the limitations of the law of Australia as that law may be in force from time to time. ... The Article does not suggest that a credit is allowed against Australian tax payable for the whole amount of the US tax paid. … It does not prescribe how much is to be allowed as a credit. ...

Before denying any relief (and before noting, at para. 23, that “it is now settled that legal professional privilege is a rule of substantive law and not merely a rule of evidence”), the unanimous Court stated (at paras. 12, 27): The plaintiffs' argument … rests upon an incorrect premise, namely that legal professional privilege is a legal right which is capable of being enforced, which is to say that it may found a cause of action. The privilege is only an immunity from the exercise of powers which would otherwise compel the disclosure of privileged communications …. ... In providing an immunity, the law's purpose was to enhance the administration of justice. … It is the policy of the law that the public interest in the administration of justice is sufficiently secured by the grant of an immunity from disclosure. ...

Under s. 38-385 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth) (the “GST Act”), a supply of precious metal was “GST-free” if, relevantly, it was the “first supply of that precious metal after its refining by … the supplier”. ... The ordinary meaning of the word “refining” … and the statutory context suggest that the word “refining” in s 38-385 is referring to a process by which metal is brought to a finer state or form. ... But this does not require that the process be directed towards increasing the metallic fineness of the metal above the requisite standard of fineness (99.5% in the case of gold). … It is the nature of the processes, rather than their purpose, that is critical in determining whether they constitute “refining”. ...

The taxpayer noted that an inter vivos by virtue of s. 249(1) generally had a calendar taxation year, and argued that “year” in s. 94(1)(c)(i) referred to the 2001 calendar year, so that, by virtue of becoming a deemed resident trust under s. 94(1) on December 17. 2001, the taxpayer was deemed to have been resident in Canada for Part I purposes from the time of its formation in 2001 – hence, s. 128.1(4) had no application and the trust avoided capital gains tax on shares held by it with an accrued gain. In rejecting this submission and in finding that the trust realized gain on the shares pursuant to s. 128.1(4)(b), Gagnon J stated (at paras. 34, 40, 48 and 50, TaxInterpretations translation): [I]t cannot be ruled out that the taxation year to which paragraph 94(1)(a) refers is a year other than a calendar year because of an express provision to the contrary in the ITA, in this case paragraph 128.1(4)(a). … The Court is of the view that if Parliament had wished to exclude the application of subsection 128.1(4) pursuant to subsection 94(1), it would have done so. … [I]t can be deduced that the purpose of subsection 128.1(4) is to crystallize and tax gains realized by a taxpayer while in Canada and before departing for another jurisdiction. … Nor is there any indication that Parliament's objective was to allow trusts such as the Trust to leave Canada without incurring the special emigration tax triggered by subsection 128.1(4). ...

In the case of New Zealand, double taxation shall be avoided as follows: (a) … Chinese tax paid under the laws of the People’s Republic of China and consistently with this Agreement, whether directly or by deduction, in respect of income derived by a resident of New Zealand from sources in the People’s Republic of China (excluding, in the case of a dividend, tax paid in respect of the profits out of which the dividend is paid) shall be allowed as a credit against New Zealand tax payable in respect of that income; … 3. For the purposes of paragraph 2 (a), tax payable in the People’s Republic of China by a resident of New Zealand shall be deemed to include any amount which would have been payable as Chinese tax for any year but for an exemption from, or reduction of tax granted for that year or any part thereof under any of the following provisions of Chinese law …. ... Contrary to the Judge’s view, we are satisfied that art 23(2)(a) requires the tax to have been paid by a New Zealand resident on income derived by him or her in China, not by a third party CFC; that is the essential precondition to a credit in New Zealand. … In our judgment art 23(2)(a) relieves solely against juridical double taxation. ...