Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

. … The receipts provided at trial showed ordinary clothes that might well be worn by anyone of Mr. Everett’s age …. I accept that Mr. Everett had to maintain a certain image. … That does not, of itself, convert an inherently personal expense into a business expense. ...

The Queen, 2018 TCC 119 (Informal Procedure)-- summary under Subsection 298(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 298- Subsection 298(2) CRA could effectively reverse notice of discontinuance by reassessing 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. ... He went on to note that CRA still appeared to have the ability to exercise its discretion to reassess to allow the rebate, stating (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) …. ...

The Queen, 2018 TCC 144-- summary under Person Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(1)- Person person includes an heir of the person irrespective of also being a legal representative The definition of a “person” indicates that such word “includes … the heirs, executors … or other legal representatives of such a person.” ... She rejected the Crown’s argument that, in order to have this ability, the heir was required by the quoted wording to have been an heir who was also a legal representative, stating (at paras. 38, 44): [T]he word “heir” found in the definition of “person”, the meaning of which is determined in accordance with the applicable private law, does not necessarily have the same meaning as the word “heir” found in the definition of “legal representative of a taxpayer” as defined under subsection 248(1): in order for an “heir” to be a “legal representative of a taxpayer” under that latter definition, the heir must administer, wind-up, control or deal in a representative or fiduciary capacity with the property of the Estate. … Parliament cannot have intended that an assessment be immune to a judicial challenge. ...

In finding that this amount was deemed by s. 182 to include GST, Favreau J stated (at paras. 65-67, TaxInterpretations translation): [T]he conditions for the application of section 182 … are met in this case. There was a modification of an agreement for the making of a taxable supply in Canada to a person and an amount was paid to the registrant otherwise than as consideration for the supply. … Unfortunately for the appellant, the rules provided under paragraph 182(1)(b) … applied irrespective whether McKesson had claimed an input tax credit respecting the damages paid. ...

The Queen, 2018 TCC 189 (Informal Procedure)-- summary under Paragraph 37(1)(d) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 37- Subsection 37(1)- Paragraph 37(1)(d) taxpayer had “physically” received unearned government assistance because it had authority to deal with the funds The taxpayer, a privately owned Canadian corporation involved in geothermal power exploration, development and utilization in Canada, was paid $528,560 in 2014 as a first advance, as assistance towards its SR&ED project, from Sustainable Development Technology Canada (“SDTC” – a government foundation) notwithstanding that one of the conditions for receipt of this payment under the Contribution Agreement between it and SDTC (the “first Milestone”) was never satisfied. ... There may have been an informal agreement respecting those funds but there was no obligation for the Appellant to notify SDTC when it transferred amounts from the trust account to another account. … In accordance with the ordinary dictionary meaning of “receive”, the Appellant physically acquired and accepted an advance of funds by way of a cheque from SDTC. The advance was given prior to the completion of the first Milestone and no conditions were superimposed on the transfer. … It was the Appellant’s decision to open a trust account and deposit those funds to that account. ...

. … The Minister must still consider … the three criteria he is mandated to consider in subsection 207.06(2) … to discharge his discretionary duty. ...

. … IHI did not provide any evidence to establish that IHI (rather than RAR) acquired the services provided by Fetherstonhaugh (so as to come within the wording of subsection 169(1) of the ETA), nor did it provide any evidence of an agreement or other contractual arrangement between IHI and Fetherstonhaugh that required IHI to pay for those services. … As noted in Garmeco, to qualify for ITCs, a claimant “must demonstrate … that it acquired the goods and services for consumption or use in the course of its own commercial activity [emphasis added].” ...

Owen J confirmed the denial of her claim under s. 62 for $59,188 in moving expenses given that she was an Australian resident before the move, stating (at para 11): Paragraphs (b) and (c) of the definition of “eligible relocation” in subsection 248(1) … together require in clear and unambiguous terms that before the move the Appellant ordinarily resided at a residence in Canada and that after the move the Appellant ordinarily resided at a residence in Canada. An exception to the “in Canada” requirement in paragraph (c) is provided only if at the time of the move the Appellant was “absent from but resident in Canada”. … He also rejected the taxpayer’s submission that IT-178R3 was misleading respecting the “within Canada” requirement, noting (at para. 14) that it clearly was only addressing the situation where “an individual changes residences in Canada” – and, in any event, “information bulletins do not create estoppels” (para. 15). ...

. … Ikea did not overrule Firestone or Neonex. Rather, it emphasized the purpose test. … The Supreme Court has endorsed the principle that the underlying purpose of an expense must be considered in the context of the taxpayer’s business. …[T]he expenses … [Mr. Robinson] incurred, put in the most favourable light, are expenditures relating to the acquisition or creation of a business, not the running of a business. ...

After stating (art para. 11) that “as directed by … Fenwick, the question remains: what is the essential nature of the claim involving the taxpayer?”, Bocock J allowed the appeal, finding (at paras. 16 and 18): Factually, there is no question that the initial lawsuit spawned the subsequent one. … The primary issue within that second lawsuit is the entitlement and quantum of remuneration payable by the employer to the employee. ... The policy based integrity of paragraph 8(1)(b) is protected. … The initial lawsuit logically and expressly cascaded into the second. ...