Search - 枣庄市市中区 智博公考 地址 电话

. … [A]n ambiguity does arise from a broader examination of the ETA as to how subsections 132(3) and 150(1) interact. The task when confronted with seemingly conflicting provisions is to determine whether they can be made to work coherently in a manner which gives effect to the statutory scheme …. ...

In rejecting the CRA position in this regard, Webb JA stated (at para. 28): The Crown’s interpretation … [is] that all ingredients that are included in the packaged product must be agricultural or plant products grown in Canada, except those that are permitted to be added by the CRA, on the basis that they are “incidental”. This would result in a delegation of authority to the CRA to decide what wine will qualify for the exemption. … [I]t would not have been the intent of Parliament to implicitly delegate this authority to the CRA. ...

This is … a legal error. As stated [in Shell]: “This Court has consistently held that courts must therefore be cautious before finding within the clear provisions of the [ITA] an unexpressed legislative intention...” …. ...

Laskin JA found that the Rules merely required the Minister to produce the documents which were in the hands of the decision-maker when the decision was made – and not to provide various other requested documents (e.g., the constating documents of all registered CAAAs at the time of the decision). However, the affidavit of the CRA decision maker stated that “all relevant materials upon which the CRA relied … have been produced.” ...

The Tax Court found that the transferred assets represented about 68% of the fair market value of the assets of the Tissue Division – and perhaps significantly less, given that some of the Tissue Division assets had not been valued. Accordingly, the requirement of s. 54.2- that all or substantially all of the assets of the business have been transferred to a corporation – had not been met, so that s. 54.2 did not deem the gain on the share sale to be a capital gain. ...

. … [The taxpayer] … would know whether he had the necessary donative intent in order for the payment of $65,000 to CLES to qualify as a charitable donation. ...

He went on to note that, but for receiving charitable tax credits, the withdrawal and “donation” would have resulted in only a small amount being retained by the taxpayer, and further stated (at para. 44): It also does not seem logical that Mr. van der Steen would withdraw a significant percentage from his RRSP … and give it to an organization about which he knew very little. There was also no satisfactory explanation of why, if [he] … simply wanted to withdraw money from his RRSP and donate it to a registered charity, he donated it all to this particular charity. ...

. … If CIBC was of the view that the Tax Court Judge had made a decision that was not based on the submissions of the parties or contrary to any admitted facts, this should have been raised in its notice of appeal and its memorandum. While this Court may permit a party to raise a new arguments during the hearing of an appeal if the opposing party has a fair opportunity to respond, this is not such a case. … ...

. … If the conditions as set out in section 3 … are satisfied, the supply of the particular residential complex will be an exempt supply. ...

Wall’s “ ex-post facto testimony regarding his intentions cannot overwhelm the manifestations of a different purpose objectively ascertainable from the record”. … Evidence contradicting the taxpayer’s arguments included: Each house was listed for sale before the occupancy permit was obtained. ...