Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

. … Deeming provisions create legal fictions. They assume things to exist even when they do not in reality—like, for example, the supply of a home that is not yet constructed. … Other elements found in the text, context and purpose of the statute support the interpretation that supply means the signing of an agreement of purchase and sale and not a transfer of beneficial ownership. ...

. … [O]n my interpretation a taxpayer in response to a query need only produce the agreement of purchase and sale to show the legal acquirer of the complex and easily obtained personal documents, such as utility bills, other standard invoices, and drivers’ licences to show who is personally residing in the complex. On my colleague’s view … [s]uddenly a straightforward verification exercise morphs into a sprawling examination for discovery. ...

Webb JA found that the s. 96(1.1) distribution did not satisfy the applicable requirement in s. 14 of the CPP Act that it be “his income for the year from all businesses … carried on by him” (he instead was retired). He stated (at para. 30): The deeming rule in subsection 96(1.1) … only provides that Mr. ...

Webb JA found that the s. 96(1.1) distribution did not satisfy the applicable requirement in s. 14 of the CPP Act that it be “his income for the year from all businesses … carried on by him” (he instead was retired). ... As a result he was not carrying on a business in common with other partners of Deloitte & Touche LLP at any time in 2008 for the purposes of the CPP. ...

. … In this case, the Tax Court found that the relevant documents contained much more than financial information, as was the case in Boulangerie St-Augustin …. ...

. … [I]n order to have a “liquidated money demand, recoverable by action” one must know the identity of the debtor and the amount owed …. ...

Canada, 2019 FCA 5-- summary under Subsection 169(2.2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 169- Subsection 169(2.2) taxpayers had given valid waivers given full knowledge of the rights which they had unequivocably waived Rossiter CJ had found that the taxpayers had given valid waivers of their right to appeal: even though the waiver letter drafted by CRA was “poorly worded … if read in its entirety … there is a sufficient and adequate explanation in the letter [such] that a person would have full knowledge of the rights being waived.” ...

. … [A]n ambiguity does arise from a broader examination of the ETA as to how subsections 132(3) and 150(1) interact. The task when confronted with seemingly conflicting provisions is to determine whether they can be made to work coherently in a manner which gives effect to the statutory scheme …. ...

In rejecting the CRA position in this regard, Webb JA stated (at para. 28): The Crown’s interpretation … [is] that all ingredients that are included in the packaged product must be agricultural or plant products grown in Canada, except those that are permitted to be added by the CRA, on the basis that they are “incidental”. This would result in a delegation of authority to the CRA to decide what wine will qualify for the exemption. … [I]t would not have been the intent of Parliament to implicitly delegate this authority to the CRA. ...

This is … a legal error. As stated [in Shell]: “This Court has consistently held that courts must therefore be cautious before finding within the clear provisions of the [ITA] an unexpressed legislative intention...” …. ...