Search - 枣庄市市中区 智博公考 地址 电话

In finding that it was an EBP, he cited Oldman (at para. 29) for the proposition inter alia that “[o]rdinarily … an Act of Parliament must prevail over inconsistent or conflicting subordinate legislation,” and then stated (at para. 30): In this case, it is not possible to reconcile the two provisions as they apply to the D2L Employee Trust. … [S]ince the definition of a prescribed trust is set out in the Regulations, the paramountcy of the definition of an employee benefit plan in the Act must govern. ... Webb JA further rejected the taxpayers’ argument that, because a prescribed trust was specifically carved out from the s. 108)1) – trust- para. ...

. … [A] limitation period demands, for its application, precision in the date of resignation. ... Further, there is a two-year limitation period which constrains the Minister’s ability to initiate proceedings against directors for unremitted source deduction. … Reliance on the subjective intention or say-so of a director alone would allow a director to plant the seeds of retroactive resignation, only to rely on it at some later date should a director-linked liability emerge. ...

. … Until such time as the contemplated transaction closed, it is arguable that Aviva could have carved up its rights to acquire the shares among other persons so that, at closing, it would acquire not more than 20 per cent of the target company. ... Similarly, in the Court of Appeal, Noël CJ dismissed the appeal, stating (at paras 50, 54, TaxInterpretations translation): [T]he reality is the holding of a future right to acquire shares does not equate to the holding of shares to which such right relates. … [N]othing in this case suggests that the purchase option conferred by [the shareholders’ agreement] was intended to frustrate section 148 of the ARDFPS. ...

Canada, 2018 FCA 74-- summary under Subsection 245(4) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 245- Subsection 245(4) using ss. 75(2) and 112(1) for tax-free dividends to trust thwarted s. 112(1) object to tax earnings when ultimately distributed In order to strip surplus of an operating corporation (“Gennium”) controlled by the Pilon family, a dividend paid by Gennium was distributed through a series of transactions to a corporation with no assets (“9163”), which then paid the amount to a Pilon family trust (“Satoma Trust” – which also had a corporate beneficiary) as a dividend on special shares that Satoma Trust held in 9163. ... The structure implemented … effectively insulated the taxable dividends received from the scope of the tax regime without any tax being paid. ...

The Supreme Court has consistently recognized that non-citizens do not have an unqualified right to enter or remain in Canada, and the government has a valid interest in expecting those present in Canada to have a legal right to be here …. The jurisprudence of this Court is also very clear that immigration status is not an analogous ground for the purposes of subsection 15(1) …. ...

Webb J.A. dismissed the appeal, stating (at paras 16, 21, 28 and 30): Although … [Bocock J] states …that “all taxpayers, who are directly subject to GAAR assessments, that is, non-third parties, are required to consider and apply GAAR”, in my view it is more accurate to state that all taxpayers who are contemplating a transaction or series of transactions that would result in a tax benefit should consider the risk that GAAR will apply to deny the tax benefit. ... As well, the requirement that the Minister in GAAR cases must establish that a tax benefit is not consistent with the object, spirit or purpose of the provisions relied upon by the taxpayer cannot justify a finding that any liability for any increased taxes would only arise once that reassessment is issued. … There is nothing in the Act that stipulates that the increased liability as a result of a reassessment based on GAAR only arises when the reassessment is issued. ...

., 2004 FCA 131, Near JA stated: (at para 4): … [W]hile not binding, opinions of the WCO must “at least be considered” in determining the classification of goods imported into Canada…. ... Near JA allowed the appeal, finding (at para 5): … [I]t is far from clear why the absence of castors and the location of the proposed use of the stands would make the stands in this case a part suitable for use solely or principally with televisions. ...

In this regard, Rivoalen JA quoted the statement of the Tax Court (at para. 55 of its reasons) that “there was no evidence that the Appellant actually ceased to be a resident of the Netherlands or was continued under Canadian law,” and stated (at paras. 19-20): [S]ubsection 128.1(1) … provides only for the consequences of a taxpayer becoming resident of Canada. There is no additional requirement that the taxpayer must cease being a resident of its former State …. ...

ITA 231.2(3) and ETA s. 289(3) for Roofmart to disclose various particulars for all of its customers who in the past 4 ½ years had made purchases of construction materials from Roofmart exceeding specified dollar thresholds. ... He further stated (at para. 39) that the “fact that the UPR may target an unspecified or large number of accounts or that a significant amount of financial information may be captured does not affect its validity,” and (at para. 45) that “ GMREB established that a pending or existing tax audit of a particular individual is not a precondition to the exercise of power under subsection 231.2(3).” ...

The Tax Court had found: “[T]he parties believed that they had established a ‘contract of enterprise or for services’ [and not a contract of employment] …” (quoted at para. 10) However, the Tax Court had gone on to apply the four Wiebe tests referred to above, and concluded that "the objective reality of the employment relationship, including [such] factors … indicates that there was an employee/employer relationship" (quoted at para. 12). ...