Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

However, TSI filed a Notice of Discontinuance on May 2, 2016 and the appeal was deemed to be dismissed on June 24, 2016 pursuant to s. 16.2(2) of the Tax Court of Canada Act (the “ TCC Act”). ... After noting (at para. 35) the appellants’ submission that s. “152(1.7) … only binds the partners with respect to the correctness of the amounts determined by the Minister,” D’Auray J indicated (at para. 38): I agree with the appellants that taking into account the wording of subsection 152(1.7) … it is not clear that this provision binds the appellants with respect to the procedural provisions of the ITA, namely the stature-barred issue. … ...

(r.4) did not apply, stating (at paras 110 and 111): … (r.4) encapsulating ancillary elements of the supply being provided is not sufficient for the exception to be satisfied, as the services listed in the definition must include the predominant elements of the supply. … … [T]he supply provided by Visa also involves services such as information collection, market research and product design. However, … these services do not encapsulate the predominant elements of the supply. ...

In rejecting that submission, Visser J stated (at paras 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 34, 36): … [E]ach of the criteria set out in paragraph 110.1(1)(d) are separate, and in particular … they are not part of the determination of when a gift has been made, which in my view occurs when a donor legally effects a voluntary transfer of property to a donee …. … [T]he certificates are necessary to claim a deduction under paragraph 110.1(1)(d) of the Act, but not to determine if a gift of land has been “made” for the purpose of paragraph 110.1(1)(d). ...

No judicial orders were mentioned in the Reply – apart from the … divorce order. ... In view of that, and the Respondent's deficient pleadings, and the Appellant's own testimony and documentation as at least slight evidence tending to support that during at least certain relevant periods he was the parent with primary responsibility for care and upbringing…, I find …the Appellant … was the person primarily responsible for the care and upbringing of JCW throughout the period of January 2013 to and including March 2015. … ...

D’Auray J went on to find that no penalty was applicable, stating (at paras. 128 and 129): Gross negligence … must involve a high degree of negligence tantamount to intentional acting, or an indifference as to whether the law is complied with or not. … Mr. ... In addition, as stated … in Mensah … even if Mr. Hansen’s conduct was consistent with two viable and reasonable hypotheses, one justifying the penalty and one not, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the taxpayer and the penalty must be deleted. ...

In finding that her motor vehicle travel expenses of close to $13,000 for 2015 “were incurred for travelling in the course of the... employment,” and in allowing the taxpayer’s appeal, Russell J stated (at paras 7, 12): … Campbell … established that when the work circumstances reasonably require that the worker have an office, and an office is not provided by the employer, then the worker can locate the required office somewhere including in their home and have it regarded as an employment location. That is, travel from the home office where much of the employment work is done, to the employer’s place of business for meetings etc., and return, constitutes employment travel and not personal travel. … [T]he appellant’s Form T2200 is clear that her employer, CCI, required her to work from a home office and specifying that 90% of her work would be from there. … [T]he appellant did not have appropriate office facilities available for her at CCI’s Oakville location. ...

Before agreeing with the position of the Minister that the “gratuity” was part of the consideration for the supply under the contract, Bocock J referred inter alia to the finding in N DP Co Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioner, [1988] VATTR 40 that: [V]oluntary gratuities are not subject to VAT because voluntary gratuities are: ‘[N]o part of the contract that the customer should pay a charge for service ….’ Before dismissing the taxpayer’s appeal, he stated (at paras. 21, 27-28): [T]he inclusion of an obligation as part of the bargain, cannot be viewed as a gift but part of the consideration. … Subsection 133(b) combined with subsection 138(a) … suggests that tips included in an agreement are part of the overall supply of prepared meals, which is subject to HST. … The ETA defines “consideration” as “any amount that is payable for a supply by operation of law.” ...

The King, 2024 TCC 125-- summary under Paragraph 301(1.2)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 301- Subsection 301(1.2)- Paragraph 301(1.2)(a) taxpayer not precluded from raising an argument that the Minister was bound by an ITC method that it had described in detail in its pleadings The objection of the taxpayer (RBC) referred in detail to the prior acceptance by the Minister off its input tax credit methodology as accepted for purposes of ETA 141.02(20), but did not submit that the Minister was bound by this method for its 2012 fiscal year – an argument that its counsel did not raise until the opening arguments at trial – which the Crown did not object to until the closing arguments at the end of the trial. ... Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, 2003 FCA 471 (para. 22) (“ Potash Corp ”) and Devon Canada Corporation v. ...

Yeomans is allowed to testify to the contents of the Appraisal Reports, limited to the opinions that she had formed while participating as the appraisers for the Artistic Program,” Rossiter CJ stated (at paras 65, 73 and 97): I find that Westerhof, with certain clarifications …, should apply with equal force to proceedings arising in the Tax Court. ... The real legal test, it seems to me, should be that a witness with expertise who has not been engaged by or on behalf of a party to the litigation to form the original opinion for the purpose of litigation may give the said opinion evidence without complying with the expert evidence rules – e.g. rule 53.03 in the Ontario Rules, rule 145 in the Tax Court Rules – provided that the “core” of the Westerhof test is met, that is, “the opinion to be given is based on the witness's observation of or participation in the events at issue; and the witness formed the opinion to be given as part of the ordinary exercise of his or her skill, knowledge, training and experience while observing or participating in such events”: Westerhof, at para. 60. … Artistic, not the Appellants, was the entity that engaged Ms. ... She inspected the art at the offices of Artistic. … Further, given my above interpretation of the phrase “engaged by or on behalf of a party”, even if Ms. ...

. … In respect of Fourney, control of Qun was “manifested in the authority” Kwong and Yu-Lian gave her in buying and eventually selling the Markham property for them.... An implied agency simply reflects existence of an agency relationship in the absence of formal or explicit documentation identifying that agency relationship. … Actual conduct rather than existence of formal agency agreement normally governs [a finding of implied agency]. … It was Kwong who obtained the benefit of the Rebate. … The Rebate application was not made by Qun...on her own behalf but rather by her in her capacity as agent for...Kwong…he being titular owner of the Markham property …. ...