Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

More particularly, he stated (at para. 238) that the quoted statutory exclusion was “grounded in an underlying rationale that … focus[es] on competitiveness,” and that “in looking at both aspects of a foreign bank’s business [namely] the receipt of funds and use of funds, there should be emphasis on the receipt side as that is where one would expect to find the competition element.” Here, virtually all of GBL’s funds came from non-arm’s length parties [there being no discussion as to who the receipt of equity funding can be part of the conduct of a business] – and, turning to the use of its funds, the purchases of the short-term debt were impressed with their character of researching the best return for a non-arm’s length party, the distributor loans “were effectively handed over to GBL by Loblaw” (para. 243), the intercompany loans clearly were with non-arm’s length persons and “even the swap activity has a considerable element of conducting business with non-arm’s length person, as the swaps were subject to Loblaw derivative policies” (para. 247). ...

Graham J found that "the test in section 54.2 is intended to be a somewhat flexible test but … there is no reason not to consider the fair market value of the assets when applying the test.” From the FMV perspective, the transferred assets represented about 68% of the assets of the Tissue Division – and perhaps significantly less, given that some of the Tissue Division assets had not been valued. ...

In finding that no interest or penalty was payable by virtue of the set-off rule in s. 228(6), D’Auray J stated (at paras. 36-38, TaxInterpretations translation): When a person files a GST return … “at any time” and it attaches to that return a rebate claim, the person is deemed “at that time” (in this case, September 28, 2015) to have made its payment and the Minister is is deemed “at that time” to have paid … an amount as a rebate. ...

I agree … and find that the object, spirit and purpose of subsection 111(5) is to target manipulation of losses of a corporation by a new person or group of persons, through effective control over the corporation’s actions. ... In allowing the appeal, he concluded (at para 166): … [T]he circumstances referred to by the Respondent do not, in my view, indicate that Matco had effective control over the majority of the voting shares of the Appellant prior to the IPO and I find that the Avoidance Transactions do not amount to abuse of subsection 256(8) and paragraph 251(5)(b) of the Act. ...

This cannot be said of the Oldco Note …. The consideration for the surrender or forgiveness of the valuable Newco Note was the surrender or forgiveness of the Oldco Note with nominal value. ... It is precisely “at the time” of transfer that the consideration proffered “at such time” was deficient …. ...

The respondent argues that … the buyers could not affect the legal position of Lohas, since the principal could not have contracted with Apple (para. 111).... … [A]ssuming the buyers purchases were in violation of Apple policy[,] at most this made the purchase contracts voidable and not void. ...

. … It is my view that the tax opinions and representations set out in the Valuation Report were intended to advise a prospective purchaser as to the tax treatment they could expect if a purchase of Software was made. ... Krumm, IAC and its agents could each be considered to be a tax shelter “promoter”, as defined in subsection 237.1(1) …. ...

…I agree with the Respondent that the language of subsection 185(1) does preclude or exclude the possibility that the Minister may review more than one election or issue only one assessment dealing with multiple elections – particularly when those elections relate to dividends that have been declared and paid by the corporation in the same taxation year. … I find that the Court is bound by the decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal in Carter, and Ginsberg, supra and that even if the Court was of the view that the assessment process involved an “inordinate” amount of time, as suggested by the Appellants, “there is no power in the court to vacate an assessment on the grounds that the Minister did not act with due dispatch.” ...

These transactions depended in part on the appellants being considered to have acquired units of an income fund ("FMO") from another income fund ("TOM") (which in turn had purportedly acquired the FMO units from an RRSP in consideration for issuing TOM units to it) at a cost equaling the units’ FMV, followed immediately by a distribution to them of capital gains that had been realized by FMO – with that distribution not reducing the ACB of their units by virtue of s. 53(2)(h)(i.1)(A) and (B)((I). ... The payment of a capital dividend by a corporation that has realized capital gains and capital losses in an equal amount, more or less, on the same day and before the capital dividends are declared, would defeat the “underlying rational of the provisions (…) in a manner that frustrates or defeats the object, spirit or purpose of those provisions”.... ...

. … The wording of the provision is unambiguous …. ...