Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

. … … When the true character of the relief sought in this case is considered, the request for payment of the refund is an attempt to short-circuit the recourse mechanisms established by Parliament. ...

In finding that no penalty could be imposed, Monaghan JA noted (at para. 16) that essentially the only testimony was of the taxpayer’s husband, which “was almost entirely about his actions and inactions,” so that essentially “nothing on the record address[ed] her involvement in or knowledge about the details of the rental business … and nothing on the record establish[ed] whether … the appellant knew she had unreported income prior to receipt of the reassessments” (para. 18). ...

Monaghan JA indicated (at para. 52) that the question of whether a due-back constituted pensionable salary and wages for purposes of the Canada Pension Plan Act, or insurable earnings for purposes of the Employment Insurance Act, turned on the “question … whether, based on the relevant facts in the case, the amount in question is paid by the employer to the employee in respect of their employment.” ... Moreover, nothing in the legislation suggests that, to qualify as an amount in respect of employment, the amount must be calculated in a particular way, or with reference to hours worked or sales or any other measurable factor. … Furthermore, the due-backs were paid by the appellant to the servers (para. 37): [T]here is no dispute the electronic tips came into possession of the appellant or that the appellant transferred the due-back, representing a portion of those electronic tips, to the servers. ...

In confirming the dismissal of their action, Boivin JA noted that: “The Judge recognized that the CRA investigators owed the appellants a duty of care … but found that the investigation was not carried out in a manner that could be characterized as negligent and was not motivated by malice or any other improper purpose” (para. 6). ... Regarding the appellants’ contention “that the procedures set out in the Taxation Operations Manual (TOM) 11 for CRA investigations were not properly followed … the Judge rightly noted that the TOM 11 ‘is a set of guidelines that have no binding legal effect and their breach is not evidence per se of a wrongful prosecution or negligence’” (paras. 11, 13). ...

In rejecting NBI’s claim of privilege, Kane J had stated that the spreadsheet was not more than the mere “operational outcome or end product of legal advice” and did not satisfy the requirement that it “communicate … the very legal advice given by counsel.” ... Regarding NBI’s submission (at para. 5) that “the Federal Court erred in putting it in an untenable position whereby it would have to reveal privileged information in order to adduce evidence of sufficient detail to convince the Federal Court that privileged information would be revealed,” Locke JA stated inter alia (at para. 6) that “NBI has … not convinced us that it could have corrected this insufficiency if it had referred to privileged information.” ...

. … To conclude otherwise would reward non-compliance with legitimate document requests from the Minister. In briefly rejecting NBI’s submission (at para. 8) “that ordering production of the unredacted Spreadsheet amounts to requiring NBI to conduct a self-audit or to reveal its ‘soft spots’,” he stated that “we find that the decision of this Court in BP Canada … is distinguishable.” ...

What mattered at the time … was “the relationship of the person acquiring the [house] to the builder—one of purchase and sale—[…], not the relationship between co-purchasers” (Cheema at para. 94). ... Chen’s submission (at para. 12) that “the majority’s reasons were undermined by amendments that were brought to the Act in 2021 [to s. 262(3)], Leblanc JA stated (also at para. 12) that “there is no indication … that the 2021 amendments were made strictly for clarification purposes.” ...

Quoting (at para. 17 of her reasons) Canada Safeway, she stated: That the appellant may have “contemplated the possibility of resale of [the shares] is not, in itself, sufficient to conclude … the existence of an adventure in the nature of trade” …. ...

This occurred – the offer of another public company (“Inco” – the 25% minority shareholder) was accepted by the Diamond Fields shareholders, thereby triggering the payment by Diamond Fields of the break fee. ...

This occurred – the offer of another public company (“Inco” – the 25% minority shareholder) was accepted by the Diamond Fields shareholders, thereby triggering the payment by Diamond Fields of the break fee. ...