Search - 枣庄市市中区 智博公考 地址 电话

Will-Kare Paving & Contracting Ltd. v. Canada, 2000 DTC 6467, 2000 SCC 36, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 915 (SCC)-- summary under Class 29 Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Regulations- Schedules- Schedule II- Class 29 supplied asphalt was merely an accession to customers' real property The taxpayer, which paved driveways, parking lots and small roadways, also operated an asphalt-producing plant. 75% of the output was utilized in that paving business, and the balance was sold to third parties. ...

International Iron & Metal Co. Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, 72 DTC 6205, [1972] CTC 242, [1974] S.C.R. 898, aff'g 69 DTC 5445, [1969] CTC 668 (Ex Ct)-- summary under Paragraph 256(1)(b) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 256- Subsection 256(1)- Paragraph 256(1)(b) ignore voting agreements A corporation ("Burland") was owned by nine children of four fathers. ...

Minister of Customs & Excise, [1928] S.C.R. 54-- summary under Similar Statutes/ in pari materia Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Similar Statutes/ in pari materia Customs Tariff Schedule established that “nursery stock” in Special War Revenue Act, 1915 only referred to trees, plants and shrubs and not potted plants In the course of finding that sales by florists of potted plants were not exempted from the sales tax imposed by s. 19BBB of the Special War Revenue Act, 1915 as being sales of "nursery stock," Duff C.J., stated: As to potted plants—"nursery" implies a place devoted to the cultivation of trees, shrubs, and plants—for the purpose of transplantation; bringing them to a degree of maturity in which that is practicable. ...

., 2013 DTC 5174 [at at 6466], 2013 SCC 65, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 838-- summary under Rectification & Rescission Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Rectification & Rescission Quebec documents did not implement common intention to defer tax Riopel Facts Mr. ...

Army & Navy Department Stores Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, 53 DTC 1185, [1953] CTC 293, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 496-- summary under Subparagraph 251(2)(c)(i) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 251- Subsection 251(2)- Paragraph 251(2)(c)- Subparagraph 251(2)(c)(i) shareholders do not indirectly own any of the corporation’s property One-half of the shares of the 5,000 shares of the “Western Company” were owned by the “Alberta company,” and the other half were owned by the “Saskatchewan company.” ...

Addison & Leyen Ltd., 2007 DTC 5365, 2007 SCC 33, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 793-- summary under Subsection 160(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 160- Subsection 160(1) delay in assessing under s. 160 not reviewable The taxation year of a corporation ("York") owned principally by one of the applicants ("Addison") ended on September 28, 1989 by virtue of a sale of York to a third party ("Senergy"). ...

Côté J indicated that the object, spirit, and purpose (“object”) of the business property exemption (which was an exception to the normal OECD model treaty approach) was to provide a “ tax break [that] encourages foreigners to invest in immovable property situated in Canada in which businesses are carried on (e.g. mines, hotels, or oil shales)” (para. 77). ... This did “ not depart from accepted usage such that the bargain struck in the Treaty could be upheld only if Luxembourg residents claiming benefits have ‘sufficient substantive economic connections’ to their country of residence” (para. 61). ... Canada “could also have insisted on a subject-to-tax provision” under which it would forego its right to tax capital gains only if the other state actually taxed those gains – but did not (para. 85). ...

Rowe and Martin, JJ, jointly speaking for the minority of three, accepted (at para. 151) that, under the Treaty, the “ allocation of taxing powers follows the theory of ‘economic allegiance’," under which “taxes should be paid on income where it has the strongest ‘economic interests’ or ties, either in the state of residence or the source state,” – whereas here there was an abuse of that Treaty object since the “evidence demonstrate[d] that Alta Luxembourg had no genuine economic connections with Luxembourg as it was a mere conduit interposed in Luxembourg for residents of third-party states to avail themselves of a tax exemption under the Treaty” (para. 177). ... The object of the business property exemption was to provide a “ tax break [that] encourages foreigners to invest in immovable property situated in Canada in which businesses are carried on (e.g. mines, hotels, or oil shales)” (para. 77). ... Canada “could also have insisted on a subject-to-tax provision” under which it would forego its right to tax capital gains only if the other state actually taxed those gains – but did not (para. 85). ...

He stated (at paras. 10-11): [T]wo of the claims raised … — those alleging procedural unfairness and a lack of an evidentiary foundation — are … best characterized as attacks on the correctness of the assessment which is the proper subject matter of an appeal to the Tax Court under the express authority of the ETA. … Iris’ third claim, that the Minister acted with an improper purpose … should … be struck here because Iris did not allege facts in its application that, if taken to be true, would give any support to this claim. ...

[B]ecause language rights are not procedural rights, the fact that a violation has had no impact on the fairness of the hearing is in principle not relevant to the remedy …. Indeed, even if there was no error in the decision on the merits, the language rights in question would be compromised if no remedy was granted … [A] new hearing will generally be an appropriate remedy for most language rights violations … because such a violation deprives one party of the possibility of having access to Canadian justice in the official language of his or her choice. … A judge's failure to take the rights of the persons before him or her into account constitutes both an error of law and a denial of natural justice independently of the quality of his or her judgment and the absence of substantive errors. The judge’s insistence that [Industrial’s counsel] speak English during most of his argument constitutes a flagrant violation of the lawyer’s language rights. … [T]he order for a new hearing was fully justified. … The violations were numerous and, in some cases, serious and repeated, and they brought the administration of justice into disrepute. ...