Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

Thompson, who wholly-owned it) refused to answer questions posed on his examination for discovery, that were designed to elicit the reason or purpose for which various transactions were engaged in by the appellant and other companies in the group, on the grounds that he and the appellant did “not have any information (including information about reasons, purposes, intention or understanding) that pertains to the … Questions and that could be provided to the Respondent without disclosing information that is protected by solicitor-client privilege.” ... This could occur where the taxpayer puts its state of mind in issue, having received legal advice to help form that state of mind. … Merely forming a view, after receiving legal advice, and then implementing a transaction does not constitute reliance on that advice …. Based on my review of the pleadings and the relevant portions of the Transcript …I do not think that the Appellant has placed its reliance on legal advice in issue as part of the position that it will take at trial. … Although I will not issue an order that would require the Appellant, in response to any of the Disputed Questions, to disclose information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, I will note that … unless the Appellant furnishes the information in writing to the Respondent no later than ten days after this Appeal is set down for trial, the Appellant will require leave of the trial judge [under Rule 96)1)], in order to introduce that information at trial. ...

. … (para 147) Respecting the “financial services requirement in para. ... (e) applied to CCG as CITB’s affiliate, Owen J stated (at paras. 153, 156): …CCG was engaged directly or indirectly in the business of providing financial services in the form of the provision of credit to arm’s length third parties. … [P]aragraph (e) of the definition of “foreign bank” in the Bank Act does not require CCG to be licensed as a bank under the laws of the foreign country, nor does it require CCG to carry on a banking business as such. … In finding that the business of CCG as a foreign bank also was “regulated,” as required by s. 95(2)(2)(l)(iii), Owen J stated (at paras. 162, 165): … [T]he employees of CCG filed monthly and quarterly reports with the Central Bank and regularly met with officials of the Central Bank. As well, CCG was subjected to two audits by the Central Bank and paid an annual fee to the Central Bank to maintain its licence under Part III of the FIA. … … [T]he regulatory requirements in the FIA were both enforced and satisfied. ...

An affidavit provided on behalf of Burlington stated (paras. 26, 34): [T]hose documents that relate to the guarantees and the guarantee fees, would have been stored in three cities, across a number of separate corporate departments: … [E]ach of these departments maintains its own records and creates its own indexes as a means to locate files within its stored records. ... The same logic applies to the Burlington’s retention policy. … … [U]nless Burlington can positively affirm that a relevant document no longer exists, it will have to search for the document.... ... Respecting documents requested from non-resident members of the corporate group, she stated (at para. 81): I adopt the comments of Justice Campbell Miller in the HSBC Bank Canada ’s decision where he ordered the Appellant to obtain the documents from its parent. … … I have no hesitation in concluding that it is reasonable to expect the Parents to respond positively to relevant inquiries. … ...

“Once the RV was turned over to JET, JET became the agent of the Canadian dealer and became responsible for any damages occurring to the RV while in its possession pursuant to the provisions of the US Transportation Code dealing with the Bill of Lading ” (para. 105). ... No. 572, that: … [I]f certain conditions are present, there may be a symbolical delivery which divests the seller’s possession …. ... A statement in the Dealership Sale Service Agreements that neither party was “the agent … of the other for any reason” had “to be interpreted in its context” (para. 116) and, in fact, Jayco acted on the dealers’ behalf in arranging delivery. ...

In 2012, the taxpayer accepted (in connection with waiving any right of appeal pertaining to the 1995 and subsequent years) a settlement agreement which provided that much of the LP losses allocated to the investors would be allowed and that related interest and carrying expenses personally incurred by them also would be allowed and that capital gains from the dispositions of their units would be included in the computation of their income – but was silent as to the treatment of the gains that had been allocated to them by the LPs. ... Savics’ income for 1998 was, for the purposes of … the Minutes … a consequential adjustment. It would be inconsistent to recognize the existence of the Partnerships and to deduct the losses allocated by the Partnerships, but not to include the gains allocated by the Partnerships. … Furthermore, given that “ Galway precludes a taxpayer and the Crown from arriving at a settlement that has no basis in the ITA ” (para. 43), and in light of the valid existence of the LPs, “a settlement that did not recognize the inclusion of those gains in his income for 1998 would be indefensible on the facts” (para. 45). ...

Colitto’s liability arose pursuant to section 227.1 of the Act in his 2011 taxation year and was not in respect of his 2008 taxation year. … Subsection 227.1(2) of the Act provides that a “director is not liable under subsection (1), unless” the preconditions set out in subsection 227.1(2) have been satisfied. … Furthermore, contextually, when comparing the language of subsection 227.1(2) and 227.1(4) of the Act, the interpretation that subsection 227.1(2) is a timing provision is confirmed. ... In my view, to be able to trace a corporation’s liability to its director under section 227.1 and then ultimately to the director’s spouse under section 160 is an extraordinary remedy, and one that should only be applied if expressly permitted by law. … I will not follow … Pliskow, Sheck, White No.1 and Filippazzo [finding that the s. 227.1 liability arises at the time of the failure of the corporation to remit rather than when the subsequent collection steps to collect that corporate liability have failed]. It is not apparent that these cases engaged in a textual, contextual and purposive interpretation of how sections 160 and 227.1 of the Act should interact with each other. … … The mere fact that Precision’s failure occurred within the 2008 calendar year which coincides with Mr. ...

(r.4), partly on the basis of its “Marketing Agreement” with Elavon stating that it would “market” merchant services offered by Elavon – but Lyons J accepted evidence that Zomaron did not carry out such marketing services. ... After having referred (at para. 94) to a statement in the 1989 GST/HST technical paper of Finance that “the services provided by insurance agents, mortgage brokers and investment dealers will be treated as tax-exempt supplies,” she stated (at para. 97) that nonetheless: Parliament intended that the concept of “arranging for” to mean “bringing together parties to a service.”. … Additionally, it … call[s] for the intermediary to have a sufficient amount of involvement to then “cause to occur” or effect the financial service without involvement in every transaction. ... This, I find, is the predominant element of the supply provided by Zomaron to Elavon and First Data. … Even if the supply provided by Zomaron to the Processors involved services of a promotional nature, since these do not represent the predominant element of the supply, paragraph (r.4) has no application …. ...

Smith J found that the receipts invalid, stating (at paras 31, 32 and 45): … [A] receipt is a written document delivered in exchange for the receipt of money, goods or services, reflecting the actual amount of money or the fair market value of the property or services received. It follows that a document, though it bears the title “receipt” or “charitable receipt” …, may not be treated or accepted as such if it does not accurately reflect the money paid or the fair market value of the property or services actually provided in exchange. … [A]lthough the donation receipts in question are described as “official receipts” …, they are not in fact receipts as that term is ordinarily understood. ...

In finding that the taxpayer's obligation for the additional tax should be treated as an obligation that arose prior to the reassessment date, Bocock J stated (at paras. 41 and 42): … [A] taxpayer possibly subject to GAAR, could have filed by deducting the future-impugned capital loss, but applying GAAR for the purposes of calculating tax payable. … [A]ll taxpayers, who are directly subject to GAAR assessments, that is, non-third parties, are required to consider and apply GAAR. ... Furthermore (paras. 51, 53): [S]ubsection 161(1)… imposes interest “at any time after a taxpayer’s balance-due day” where tax payable exceeds amounts paid on account of tax for the year. … To not impose interest from the balance-due day… renders GAAR ineffective in nullifying the deferral portion of the “tax benefit”. … ...

. … [T]he exclusions listed in section 1 of Part III…should be narrowly construed. ... In finding that the sticks came within the exclusion from zero-rating in para. 1(f), Smith J stated (at paras 59, 62, and 63): …[T]he sticks … were manufactured by a company called “Old School Snacks” and the evidence clearly established that they were sold as snacks and eaten as‑is without further preparation. …[T]he … sticks were not sold as crackers or “bread sticks” or even as a bread product. … [B]read products including crackers are in fact oven‑baked and not fried. ...