Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

In declining the Applicants’ request for judicial review, Walker J paraphrased (at para. 32) the Guidelines in Policy Statement P-255 on accepting late-election, including a requirement that “both corporations must have filed all GST/HST returns as required,” noted (at para. 33) that “[a]s long as the Minister does not fetter her discretion and improperly limit the scope of her analysis, she may rely on the factors identified in the Guidelines in making her decision,” and then stated (at paras. 40, 58): [S]ubsection 238(1) provides that all registrants (registered or not) “shall file a return with the Minister for each reporting period …”. The fact that a registrant may have a nil return does not exempt them from the requirement to file returns. … The filing of the Billing Agent Election and the assumption by Castle of the administrative tasks of collection, reporting and remittance of CBS’s GST/HST does not affect the status of CBS as the supplier of the goods and services in respect of which the tax is collectible. ... She concluded (at para. 88): The [CRA] Decision is reasonable when read within the Vavilov framework for intelligibility and justification, taking into account “the evidence before the decision maker, the submissions of the parties [and] publicly available policies or guidelines that informed the decision maker’s work […]” (Vavilov at para 94). ...

McDonald J found (at para 44) that this 2014 letter was a reviewable decision, but went on to find (at para 51) that the CRA decision was reasonable: … [T]he CRA…concluded that tax avoidance may have been a factor in the corporate reorganization. ... These conclusions are within the range of possible outcomes of the MAP process. … In further rejecting an argument that CRA had unfairly not let CGI know the basis for CRA’s concerns, McDonald J stated (at para. 59): The basis for CGI’s application for a refund was the TD Securities decision. ...

In denying the taxpayers’ applications to set aside the Minister’s adverse decisions, Campbell J stated (at paras 22 and 25): … I find that establishing whether the Minister’s discretion applies to s. 129 is a jurisdictional question with respect to an interpretation of the ITA which is not within this Court’s authority to decide. I also find that… the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in 1057513 … supports this conclusion.... ...

. … The order the Minister seeks does not meet the principle of proportionality. … The time and cost involved in allowing the Minister to interview more than 25 Cameco personnel scattered across the world is not proportional to the information being sought since the Tax Court of Canada will determine the issues that are the focus of the requested interviews. ...

In finding Chi to be in contempt, LeBlanc J stated (at paras. 40, 45): … [T]he evidence … displays sporadic attempts by Mr. ...

. … … Unlike in BP, the Minister’s request for access to the Report in the present case is made in the context of an active audit of particular issues. ...

. … When assessing a request for the re-apportionment of an SBC, the Minister should also have regard to whether denial of the request might possibly result in the Minister’s inability to collect outstanding tax arrears from a taxpayer. … [T]he decision [is] unreasonable because it is not apparent or transparent that Forbes’ financial hardship was a factor in the decision-making process. ...

. … The Delegate’s characterization of the Applicant as “a repeat over-contributor to his TFSA account” is unjustified, especially when one considers that the CRA granted his request for a waiver of the tax imposed on the 2014 excess contribution. … [T]he Delegate’s decision is unreasonable because it did not fully assess the extent to which the excess contributions resulted from the mistakes of persons other than the Applicant. ...

For the current year, she filed her regular return about seven weeks late after claiming to have confirmed on the CRA General Inquiries line that there would be no penalty for doing so (as no Part I taxes were owing) but filed her T1135 return with that return – and was assessed a late-filing penalty under s, 162(7) for late-filing the latter return, of $25 per day (or $1225 in total) plus interest. ... She also accepted (at para. 20) the CRA view (summarized at para. 9) that: Without her documents (her being in Toronto and not Fredericton) … she could have instead filed an estimated 2015 Form T1135 and then amended it once she had her documents. ...

Canada (Revenue Agency), 2020 FC 1156-- summary under Paragraph 13(1)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Other Legislation/Constitution- Federal- Access to Information Act- Section 13- Subsection 13(1)- Paragraph 13(1)(a) all information communicated under Bermuda TIEA was protected confidential information The applicants, who were awarded damages in Ludmer regarding CRA’s conduct of its audit of their investments in an off-shore company and who had been denied full access to 8,041 out of 38,090 pages of documents that had been identified as covered by their requests under s. 6 of the Access to Information Act (“ ATIA ”), sought judicial review under s. 41 of the ATIA of CRA’s decision to exempt various of such documents from disclosure. ...