Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 1014, aff'd 2021 FCA 189-- summary under Subsection 141.02(18) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 141.02- Subsection 141.02(18) Minister's rejection of bank's proposed methodology based on perceived distortions, was reasonable The Minister rejected (under s. 141.02(20)) the request of the registrant (the “Bank”) for approval of an “output method formula” ITC allocation method (“OMF”) on the basis inter alia that “the Bank’s OMF did not result in a reasonable approximation of the inputs it used to provide zero-rated financial services to non-residents of Canada” (para. 33) and, in particular, had three primary concerns: The Bank’s allocation of the Bank’s Treasury group’s interest expense and revenue amounts to the Bank’s three customer-facing operating groups permitted the Bank to recover a portion of the GST costs of those groups even though the operations of those groups were substantially confined to the provision of financial services to making Canadian exempt supplies – and, in particular, that approach violated the “first order supply rule” that “a business cannot recover GST incurred on inputs acquired to make exempt supplies, even when those exempt supplies enable the business to make other taxable supplies.” ... Before finding that the Minister’s decision to reject was reasonable (which relevantly was all that was required), Walker J stated (at para. 107): I have considered the Bank’s … argument that the Minister must approve a proposed methodology if it is fair and reasonable. I do not agree. … I find that subsection 145.01(5) has been superseded by the specific QI regime in section 141.02. ...

. … [T]here must be an element of an individual’s privacy concerns that elevates them to a public concern, beyond personal concerns and sensibilities (Sherman at para 54). ... Rémillard’s personal safety, an attack on his dignity, a risk of psychological harm or a risk to his professional reputation. … This leaves Mr. ... In my opinion, whether the important public interest is privacy or tax secrecy, the inconvenience of media attention in this case is at odds with the open court principle and does not in itself warrant the order sought. … As the Supreme Court made clear in Sherman, the implementation of the open court principle will necessarily infringe the privacy rights of litigants, so the preservation of that right cannot be a ground in itself for overriding the public nature of court proceedings. ...

Before the Federal Court rendered a decision on the Minister’s application, Dominelli and the Minister reached an agreement under which Dominelli undertook “to perform a detailed and exhaustive search of… records in my possession” and to “particularize my efforts” and “to request and direct my professional advisors to conduct an exhaustive search”, “to make inquiries of individuals and entities listed below” and to “particularize my efforts in making these inquiries,” all as described by affidavit with appended documents – with it being further agreed that if the Minister was not satisfied with the affidavit materials, she would ask that judgment be delivered on the compliance application. ... Pentney J stated (at para. 59) that he agreed “with Dominelli that the scope of the Minister’s discretion to determine that she is not satisfied that he has discharged his obligations under the agreement must be limited by the terms of their agreement ….” ... After noting the various documents that had been requested on audit and not provided, Pentney J stated (at para. 79): Understood in that context, the gap between what Dominelli promised to do and what his affidavit states is striking. … [H]is evidence does not establish that he has met the specific and detailed terms of the agreement and the Undertaking that he negotiated, and thus his motion cannot succeed. ...

The decision-maker could also emphasize the need to protect the integrity of the appeal process …. It stands to reason that a remission order should not normally be used as an alternative avenue of appeal for a taxpayer who has failed to pursue the remedies available under the Income Tax Act, let alone as a means of overriding a settlement to which the taxpayer has agreed. … Internal disagreement alone does not prove the outcome of the objection and appeal process to be wrong …. ...

The final CRA decision letter responding to the taxpayer’s request for review of the CRA decision to impose tax under s. 207.02 (including an assessment of his 2021 taxation year) indicated that excess contribution amounts had not been withdrawn following the July 20, 2021 assessment until November 2021, so that the removal of the excess contributions did not occur within a reasonable time frame – but provide no explanation as to why the $9,000 excess withdrawal in 2021 did not offset the further 2021 contributions. ... The decision provides no explanation whatsoever as to how the CRA determined that the excess contribution was only remedied on November 30, 2021 …. … I find that the decision regarding both the 2020 and 2021 taxation years is unintelligible and lacks justification and transparency. ...

. … I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the funds now in the hands of the Minister would likely be jeopardized if returned to the Respondent. The only real asset is the Chute Lake property; it is heavily mortgaged and subject to a foreclosure order. … The principal of the Respondent, Consiglio, or the companies with which he is associated, has a history of non-payment of taxes and bankruptcy. ...

. … …The Applicant chose to collect revenue generated by the machines personally, rather than through his corporation, and he cannot rely upon an accounting principle to ignore the legal reality of the lease and argue that the cost of the lease payments should be attributed to him personally and deductible from his personal income for the 2001 taxation year. … Words and Phrases matching principle ...

. … [C]ertainty is an essential ingredient. … [U]nless the agreement is contrary to public order, the contract is valid and binding. ...

In refusing this request, Martineau J indicated that, under ss. 165(3) and 171, the Tax Court had the power to cancel an assessment, and stated: …The public interest — i.e. the orderly application of the ITA — takes precedence here over the financial and other inconveniences that the applicant may face by having, like all taxpayers, to follow the normal challenge procedure set out in the ITA. ...

In confirming that the Minister’s decision to deny penalty relief was reasonable, Campbell J stated (at paras. 8-9): The... second level review [found]: … [T]he amount omitted … represents a large amount of his employment earnings. ...