Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

General Provisions In indicating that to the extent that there is any overlap between ss.15(1)(c) and 7(1), the latter provision should prevail, Bowman TCJ. stated (p. 138): "... where a choice must be made between two taxing provisions that might conceivably apply to require an inclusion in income, a specific provision should prevail over a general one, on the footing that Parliament must be taken to have intended that the specific provisions would regulate the particular type of transaction. ...

International Commercial Bank Ltd. (1978), 52 TC 242 (HL)-- summary under Accounting Principles Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 9- Accounting Principles In finding that discounts on bills should be taken into income on the disposition of the bills rather than on a straight-line basis, as was done for accounting purposes, Lord Fraser stated (p. 272): "... the Crown, relied on the general rule that the principles of commercial accounting should normally prevail. ...

Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Hansard, explanatory notes, etc. purpose inferred in part from Legislative Assembly statement of Minister The Court inferred from a response (quoted at para. 21) to an MLA question given by the Minister of Energy in the Alberta legislature- that there was an intention to create “level playing field” between municipally-owned power companies and taxable competitors – that it was contrary to the purpose of a legislative rule requiring such otherwise-exempt companies to make payments in lieu of taxes, to be able to “shelter” their earnings by paying junk-bond interest rates on financing from their exempt parents. ...

. … [I]n Daishowa-Marubeni …Nadon J.A. [stated]: … if the parties to an agreement attribute a value to a future liability, then the Minister is entitled to add this amount to the vendor's proceeds of disposition- whether or not the liability assumed by the purchaser is contingent or absolute. ...

. … Parliament in enacting legislation for the taxation of emoluments or earnings from employment has sought to tax remuneration paid in money or money’s worth. No persuasive rationale has been advanced for excluding from the scope of this tax charge remuneration in the form of money which the employee agrees should be paid to a third party, or where he arranges or acquiesces in a transaction to that effect. … In finding that the relevant source deduction (“PAYE”) regulations pointed in the same direction, he noted that s. 21 thereof spoke of making “a relevant payment to an employee,” Regulation 12 provided that “other payees are treated as employees,” and stated (at para. 40): I therefore read “payment to an employee” or essentially similar phrases in the subordinate legislation as a reference to the payment of the employee’s emoluments whether to the employee or to another person. ...

S. 43(2) of the IHTA provided: "Settlement" means any disposition or dispositions of property, whether effected by instrument, by parol or by operation of law, or partly in one way and partly in another, whereby the property is for the time being – (a) held in trust for persons in succession or for any person subject to a contingency, or (b) held by trustees on trust to accumulate the whole or part of any income of the property or with power to make payments out of that income at the discretion of the trustees or some other person, with or without power to accumulate surplus income…. ... Thus he did not shrink from submitting that in 2001 Mr Dreelan made three separate settlements for IHT purposes when he settled the original £100 on the trusts of the 2001 Settlement and then made two further transfers of property to it, even though any trust lawyer would say that Mr Dreelan had made a single settlement and then added property to it. … …I consider the better view to be that the 2001 Settlement was a single settlement for IHT purposes, constituted by a number of separate dispositions of property to be held on the trusts thereof. ...

Convention because of the exclusion in Art. 13 for dispositions of (deemed) real property situated in Australia, given s. 3A(1) of the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 (Cth), which extended the application of the Art. 13 exclusion to dispositions of shares of companies “the value of whose assets is wholly or principally attributable, whether directly, or indirectly through one or more interposed companies or other entities, to … real property or interests”. ... It follows that on this basis of assessment of the RCF IV and RCF V partners there is to be excluded from the taxable value of the capital gain, the value attributable to the general purpose leases, the miscellaneous licence and the plants used in the processing operations rather than in the mining. … Whether the interests of the applicants in Talison Lithium also passed the principal asset test, for the purposes of s 855-25(1)(b), requires consideration of whether 50% or more of the market value of the assets of Talison Lithium were attributable to Australian real property. ...

. … After describing the DLC Arrangement in greater detail, the Court stated (at paras. 46-47): [T]hese arrangements were each a mechanism, an important mechanism, that ensured that Ltd and Plc were, are and would be operated and able to be operated as a "single unified economic entity". Contrary to the submissions of Ltd, the fact that Ltd and Plc operated in this way pursuant to a contract does not preclude a finding that they "sufficiently influenced" each other – otherwise, any company would be able to place itself outside the reach of the statute (of being "sufficiently influenced" by another company) by forming a contract to govern their relationship. ...

In reversing this finding (and before going on to direct that the assessments of the Corporation and of Demers for their 2006 years be affirmed), Bouchard JCA stated (paras. 92-94, TaxInterpretations translation): In accordance with Regina Shoppers Mall … a taxpayer does not make a misrepresentation where he or she thoughtfully, deliberately and carefully assesses the situation and files on what he or she believes bona fide to be the proper method. … Mr. ...

In the course of rejecting the taxpayers’ submission that the CAE decision should instead be applied to treat the taxable capital gain as only being includible in the taxpayers’ income in 2010, Quenneville JCQ stated (at paras. 206-207, 210): [T]hat case … dealt with the change of use of property considered to be inventory that had been transferred in the course of a refinancing, but which had continued to be used by the plaintiff for the same purposes as before the transfer. ... In both cases, the income is derived from the building …. It can be seen that this argument is attractive to the plaintiffs, allowing them to argue that the capital gain should have been taxed in 2010 and to argue that this is a statute-barred year. ...