Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

. … [T]here was no evidence…that the bonuses were…intended…to reasonably compensate the Appellant for her duties of employment. … [T]he Appellant received remuneration through her bi-weekly pay that was roughly equivalent to Mike’s remuneration, except for 2008 when the Appellant’s regular pay exceeded Mike’s. ...

. … This series of transactions permitted the appellant, on the redemption of the Class G shares of Gestion Pierre Pomerlau Inc., to extract as a tax-free return of capital, $994,628 derived from the surplus of his corporation by virtue of utilizing his capital gains deduction and that of his mother and sister. … But for already having isolated the so-called “soft” adjusted cost base in the Class G shares of P Pom Inc. in order to generate a capital loss from their redemption, with a resulting increase in the adjusted cost base of the Class A shares of P Pom Inc., it would not have been possible to avoid the tax consequences arising under section 84.1 of the Act. ...

. … Together, these prevent the extraction of corporate surplus tax-free in such circumstances and preclude the return of an amount of capital tax-free in excess of an investor’s original contribution…. ... Individual taxpayers should not be allowed to use their capital gains exemption to strip corporate surpluses by entering into non-arm’s length transactions which are similar to those addressed in section 84.1 nor obtain excess PUC tax-free. … [T]he…transactions…achieved a result (extraction of corporate surplus indirectly and use of his exemption) that section 84.1 was intended to prevent and defeats its underlying rationale and did so by misusing the PUC computation in subsection 89(1) to trigger the share averaging thus artificially inflated the PUC in The Shares held by Mr. ...

Graham J found (at para 37): … Since the ingredients that follow the phrase “composed wholly of” in the exemption are “agricultural or plant product grown in Canada”, the text of the exemption clearly requires that, at whatever time the test is to be applied, the wine must contain no ingredients other than agricultural or plant products grown in Canada. ... Graham J found (at paras 107- 109): … Applying the test at fermentation will cause less harm to the purpose of the exemption than applying it at packaging. ...

Under the investment component: The taxpayer purchased a minimum of 10 limited partnership units (the “LP Units”) in an Ontario limited partnership (the “2009 LP” – whose general partner was owned by a family trust of the owner of the promoter (“EquiGenesis”)) for $36,140 per LP unit, of which $32,000 was funded by a loan (a “Unit Loan,”) – which had a maturity date in February 2019, was secured by a pledge of the LP Units, bore interest at 7.85%, all of which in fact was funded with further cash advances from the lender (“capitalized interest”), who was a trust (“FT”)- and the balance was funded by the taxpayer. ...

. … [T]he second part of the deeming provision [in s. 39(2)] deems the capital gains and losses to have arisen from the disposition of a foreign currency as opposed to some other type of property. ... [whereas] under the Broad Interpretation … Parliament could have wanted to deem foreign exchange gains and losses arising from the disposition of property to instead arise from the disposition of currency.... ...

After noting and rejecting a taxpayer submission that it had filed a request in prescribed form for 2002 for the carryback regarding its 2002 loss and that “what is contemplated in the circumstances is an amendment to [this] original request for loss carry‑back” (para. 42) and that “it would be reasonable to interpret this request for carry back of the 2002 losses in an amount sufficient to reduce its income to nil as providing an ‘implied request’ to apply the 2002 unused losses to reduce the increase in income that resulted from the 2004 Grosvenor settlement,” St-Hilaire J stated (at para. 50): [P]aragraph 111(1)(a) … is a permissive deduction; only the taxpayer has the right to choose how to allocate their losses and the Minister has no basis to impose a particular allocation on the taxpayer subject to the restriction referred to earlier. ... St-Hilaire J dismissed the appeal, commenting (at para 83): …[T]he Court is left with legislation that does not satisfactorily address the circumstances and an administrative policy that seemingly seeks to address the lacunae but for which there is no legislative authority. … ...

Before concluding that Emergis could not claim the s. 20(12) deduction for such withholding taxes, on the basis that they were “taxes … that can reasonably be regarded as having been paid by a corporation [Emergis] in respect of income from a share of the capital stock of a foreign affiliate of the corporation [the LLC],” Favreau J stated (at paras. 68, 74): [T]he words “in respect of” are very broad …. ...

. … I view the statements made by counsel for the Respondent at the hearing on January 28, 2021, to the effect that the Respondent would not rely on the tax-shelter argument at trial, as being a representation or a commitment made to the Court. In the absence of a reasonable explanation as to why counsel for the Respondent now desires to resile from that representation or commitment, I am reluctant to grant leave …. ...

The Minister had not pleaded backdating- only that the appellant had continued as a director – nor did she plead lack of due diligence. ...