Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

Trollope & Colls, Ltd. et al. v. Atomic Power Constructions Ltd., [1962] 3 All E.R. 1035, in which it was held that parties to a contract could give their contract retrospective effect. ...

Canada, 2022 FCA 57-- summary under Paragraph 175(1)(b) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 175- Subsection 175(1)- Paragraph 175(1)(b) health care services rendered to employees were not in relation to the employer’s activities Westcoast reimbursed (through Manulife as its agent) employees who had incurred various health care services – including some which were GST/HST-taxable, namely, acupuncture, massage therapy, naturopathy and homeopathy services. ...

In connection with finding that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction under s. 171 to reverse a Ministerial opinion that a requested s. 247(10) downward adjustment is inappropriate given that the jurisdiction accorded to the Tax Court under ITA s. 171(1) is only to vacate or vary an assessment or refer it back to the Minister, whereas a s. 247(10) opinion is not an assessment (although it will affect an assessment), he noted (at para. 74): Anchor Pointe … found that what is under appeal to the Tax Court is the product of the process of determining a taxpayer’s liability under the ITA and not the process itself. ...

As stated in London & Thames Haven, an asset’s profitability is an element to be considered in assessing its capital value.... ...

. … The second step in the interpretive exercise is to determine whether the shared meaning is consistent with Parliament’s intent, having regard to the ordinary rules of statutory interpretation: S.A.C. at para. 16, citing Daoust at para. 30. ...

After referring to Huston & Whitehead v. MNR [1962] Ex CR 69, where an award in 1958 of compensation out of the War Claims Fund for a loss suffered in 1945 plus "interest" was found not to contain any element of interest because there was no entitlement to compensation until the award was given, Le Dain J stated (at p. 6085): I think it is the existence on the closing date of a conditional obligation or contingent liability to pay the balance of price which the parties were entitled to treat as having become absolute with retroactive effect, for purposes of interest, that distinguishes the present case from Huston. ...

As explained by Rip J….in McMillen …, the amount of a refund resulting from an overpayment, although often set out on the notice of assessment, is not an assessed amount (McMillen, para. 47). ...

The principle was described in James Richardson & Sons, Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 614, 84 D.T.C. 6325 at 6329, where the Court referred to the English decision of Pretty v. ...

. … As a result, the loss realized by CIBC on the redemption of shares is deemed to be nil and, therefore, there is no loss that could have been deemed to be a capital loss under subsection 39(2) of the ITA. ...

. … The appellant also argues that he was denied procedural fairness because he legitimately and reasonably expected that he would be provided the same process considerations as the successful SDL Optics employees. … I disagree. The doctrine of legitimate expectation permits a court to grant appropriate procedural remedies – it cannot give rise to substantive rights. … The decision-maker reasonably found that the appellant’s circumstances were not similar to employees of SDL Optics. … The decision-maker reasonably concluded that …there were no extenuating circumstances as required by the [Canada Revenue Agency Remission Guide] guidelines. … The decisions to exercise the option to purchase the ZCL shares and to hold those shares were within the appellant’s control. ...