Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

Johnson & Johnson, 94 DTC 6125. ...

The Queen, 2009 DTC 179, 2008 TCC 684-- summary under Paragraph 18(1)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 18- Subsection 18(1)- Paragraph 18(1)(a) A fine which the taxpayer paid under the Occupational Health & Safety Act (Ontario) for the offence of failing "to provide information, instruction and supervision to a worker" following a death of a worker was found not to come within the "egregious or repulsive" conduct obiter dictum of the Supreme Court of Canada. ...

The Queen, 2010 DTC 1399 [at at 4585], 2010 TCC 576, aff'd 2012 DTC 5055 [at 6842], 2011 FCA 321, aff'd 2013 DTC 5144 [at 6275], 2013 SCC 48-- summary under Redundancy/reading in words Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Redundancy/reading in words The taxpayer unsuccessfully argued (ca. para. 65) that s. 87(2) was intended to constitute a complete code as to the consequences of an amalgamation, so that it would be rendered redundant if an amalgamation could be governed by general Black & Decker ([1975] 1 S.C.R. 411) principles. ...

Salomon & Co., [1897] A.C. 22 (HL)): [A]n Ontario corporation is a legal entity that has a legal personality separate and apart from its directors, officers and shareholders. ...

The Queen, 2018 TCC 119 (Informal Procedure)-- summary under Subsection 16.2(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Other Legislation/Constitution- Federal- Tax Court of Canada Act- Section 16.2- Subsection 16.2(2) notice of discontinuance could not be reversed even with Crown consent The unrepresented taxpayer filed a notice of discontinuance for her appeal of the denial of the new housing rebate after being advised by Crown counsel that her appeal was unlikely to succeed – but a day later, was informed by Crown counsel that she would be allowed the rebate. ... After referring to s. 16.2(2) and Scarola, 2003 FCA 157, Smith J stated (at paras. 10, 12): …[T]he FCA concluded that “Parliament has chosen to legislatively determine the legal consequences of a notice of discontinuance”, rather than leaving it to judicial discretion (para. 18). … The FCA went on to find that a discontinuance under subsection 16.2(2) “produces the same effect as a judgment of dismissal by the Court” (para. 21). … The FCA … noted: …I believe section 16.2 by its plain meaning took away any inherent or residual jurisdiction in the Court to allow for withdrawals of notices of discontinuance. ... Smith J dismissed the taxpayer’s motion to set aside the notice of discontinuance, but added (at para. 14): … I leave it to the Minister to consider the appropriateness of a reassessment to implement the terms of the consent, possibly pursuant to subsection 298(2) …. ...

Bocock J found (at paras. 10, 21): Non est factum is available where a person is not capable of both reading and sufficiently understanding a document. … … Anna from and after her diagnosis date, lacked mental capacity to execute or did not execute and file the 2003 filings…. Therefore, the notices of reassessments responsive to the 2003 filings … were void. … [T]he reassessments were consequential to invalid or unlawful filings and issued by the Minister under innocent mistake of fact. Accordingly, no objection was required to the void reassessments. … Bocock J went on to vacate those reassessments. ...

Once the minimum amount of $100,000 had been reached — no matter how calculated — then amounts received by Mr. ... Brosseau's deal essentially was a minimum plus an override, not unusual, and not unreasonable — but a distinction with a tax difference as I see it. I do not reach this conclusion on the excess $25,072 without some reservation — since I see some merit in the concise argument of counsel for the appellant on the point — that since the first $100,000 did not come from "use or production", why the second $25,072? ...

Miller, J found that the Tax Court did not have the jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a purported Alberta trust which had been assessed by CRA for Ontario income tax (on the basis of being resident in Ontario) as well as for Ontario gross negligence penalties, stating (at para. 14): [I]t is also clear that the Tax Court of Canada does not have jurisdiction to decide if a provincial penalty is properly imposed: Andrew Paving & Engineering Ltd v Minister of National Revenue, [1984] C.T.C. 2164 (TCC) at paragraph 8 and Raboud v Canada, 2009 TCC 99 at paragraph 12. ...

In rejecting the taxpayer’s arguments inter alia that such property was capital property, which precluded the treatment of the receipts as being on income account (even under s. 12(l)(g)), Taylor TCJ held that as the amount of the royalty was “dependent upon the use of or production from ‘ the business as a going concern’ (the property),” and that the property sold had a direct relationship with the source of payment, the payments fell squarely within s. 12(l)(g). ...

…[I]t is also clear that the Tax Court of Canada does not have jurisdiction to decide if a provincial penalty is properly imposed: Andrew Paving & Engineering Ltd v Minister of National Revenue, [1984] C.T.C. 2164 (TCC) at paragraph 8 and Raboud v Canada, 2009 TCC 99 at paragraph 12. ...