Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

Leblanc JA agreed, stating (at para. 66, TaxInterpretations translation): [I]t would be incongruous, to say the least, if provisions purporting to assist a taxpayer caused more harm to a well-meaning taxpayer than to a less well-meaning one …. This cannot be the result that Parliament intended …. Accordingly, he found (at para. 69) that the "amount" referred to in ss. 280 and 280.1 on which the interest or late-filing penalty was to be calculated “can only represent, in circumstances such as these, the amount of tax actually owed by the taxpayer” (i.e., the tax as reduced by the taxpayer’s rebate entitlement). ...

Blue Bridge argued that it was the Minister’s responsibility to ensure that the “taxation … not contrary to the Convention” condition in Art. 26 was met before transmitting the requested information to France, whereas here, France was seeking to impose tax under a French wealth-tax statute which attributed all foreign trust assets to a French settlor or beneficiary in order to subject them to the tax, which in its view raised the possibility of the information being used to levy tax contrary to the Convention. ... She stated (at para. 47, TaxInterpretations translation): The judge rightly concluded that a requirement for thorough research and analysis of the facts and the law of the requesting State would impede the proper and effective operation of the Convention’s provisions …. ...

. … Thus, Public CO2 had the power to terminate the trustees’ functions by revoking or not renewing their mandate as directors. … [T]he mechanism put in place clearly gave Public CO2 the ability to change the appellant’s board of directors or to influence in a very direct manner those who had that ability. ...

., 2021 FCA 223-- summary under Subsection 152(3.4) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 152- Subsection 152(3.4) respective roles of Tax Court and Federal Court in reviewing CEWS claims CRA, which had taken the view that Iris Technologies in fact had not experienced a significant decline in its qualifying revenues during COVID, denied Iris’ CEWS (wage subsidy) claims – initially on the basis of exercising its discretion under s. 164(1.6), which provides that the Minister, before the time for filing the taxpayer’s return for the year, “may refund to the taxpayer all or any part of the [deemed CEWS] overpayment” arising under s. 125.7(2). ... Whether the Minister erred in determining that there was no overpayment is to be adjudicated in the Tax Court; whether the Minister erred in refusing to refund an overpayment is for the Federal Court to decide. … Rennie JA went on to find that in substance Iris’ application was a challenge to the Minister’s determination, reflected in the subsequent notice of determination made pursuant to s. 152(3.4), that Iris had not generated a CEWS (deemed overpayment) amount under s. 125.7(2), and found that Iris’ judicial review application should be struck. ...

For instance, the taxpayers now argued that each of the principals could have chosen to not form a Serviceco, whereas the terms of the Partnership Agreement appeared to provide that there was no such choice – so that “the evidence and factual findings in the Tax Court may well have been different had the parties been focussed before the Tax Court on the issue [now] raised by the Appellants …” (para. 29). ...

Khanna’s testimony that they shared the income from the rental properties they owned … nothing on the record address[ed] her involvement in or knowledge about the details of the rental business” (para. 17). ... She concluded (at para. 27): … As this Court has said, “[w]ilful blindness pivots on a finding that the taxpayer deliberately chose not to make inquiries in order to avoid verifying that which might be such an inconvenient truth. ...

The assessments were issued for the improper purpose of depriving the Federal Court of jurisdiction to hear administrative law grievances raised by Iris- as to which Rennie JA noted (at para. 13) that “where the true purpose of the application is to seek practical relief against the exercise of a discretion, the bar in section 18.5 does not apply” – but went on to indicate that such was not the case here. ... Issuing a declaration that does not quash or vacate the assessments would serve little or no purpose …. ...

In finding that such CCA claims could not be treated as having been revised, Webb JA indicated (at para. 32) that the “administrative practice [in IC 84-1] is not binding on this Court, nor can it amend the Act, noted (at para. 36) that “ Nassau Walnut … drew a distinction between an election and a designation” and found (at para. 41) that “the comments in Nassau Walnut with respect to an election, and the inability of a taxpayer to change an election absent a specific provision in the Act permitting such a change, are applicable in this case.” ...

(r.5) of the financial service definition provided an exclusion from financial service for “property … that is delivered or made available to” CIBC “in conjunction with” CIBC selling financial products of PC Bank, the supply made by PC Bank to CIBC was taxable. ... Parliament does not speak in vain …. He then concluded (at para. 68): CIBC has failed to establish that the Tax Court Judge committed any palpable and overriding error in his finding that PC Bank supplied the “Bundle of Rights” to CIBC. ...

In applying Deans Knight to reverse the Tax Court finding that there was no abuse of s. 111(5), Monaghan JA stated (at paras. 34-35): The object, spirit and purpose of subsection 111(5) – its rationale – is “to prevent corporations from being acquired by unrelated parties in order to deduct their unused losses against income from another business for the benefit of new shareholders”. ...