Search - 枣庄市市中区 智博公考 地址 电话

(r.5) of the financial service definition provided an exclusion from financial service for “property … that is delivered or made available to” CIBC “in conjunction with” CIBC selling financial products of PC Bank, the supply made by PC Bank to CIBC was taxable. ... Parliament does not speak in vain …. He then concluded (at para. 68): CIBC has failed to establish that the Tax Court Judge committed any palpable and overriding error in his finding that PC Bank supplied the “Bundle of Rights” to CIBC. ...

In applying Deans Knight to reverse the Tax Court finding that there was no abuse of s. 111(5), Monaghan JA stated (at paras. 34-35): The object, spirit and purpose of subsection 111(5) – its rationale – is “to prevent corporations from being acquired by unrelated parties in order to deduct their unused losses against income from another business for the benefit of new shareholders”. ...

In applying Deans Knight to reverse the Tax Court finding that there was no abuse of s. 111(5), Monaghan JA stated (at paras. 34-35): The object, spirit and purpose of subsection 111(5) – its rationale – is “to prevent corporations from being acquired by unrelated parties in order to deduct their unused losses against income from another business for the benefit of new shareholders”. ...

In affirming this finding, Boivin JA distinguished Kevin Davis Dentistry, which gave effect to the expressed Parliamentary intent to “provide for different tax treatment of supplies of orthodontic appliances and orthodontic service” (para. 25) whereas, here, the Ontario regulations did “not amount to as clear an indicator of Parliament’s intent as the GST Act did in Kevin Davis Dentistry ” and “the intended tax treatment of what would constitute separate supplies in the present circumstances is not outlined in any statute as it was in the GST Act in Kevin Davis Dentistry ” (para. 28). ...

., 2011 FCA 120 … information pertaining to the policy of the Act, even where it is not taxpayer specific, can be relevant on discovery. … ...

In my view, Justice Paris followed the correct approach when he determined the purpose of the series of transactions on an objective basis – that is, by ascertaining objectively the purpose of each step by reference to its consequences – rather than on the basis of the subjective motivation of Mr. ...

. … [A]lthough auditors are entitled to be provided with “all reasonable assistance” in performing their audits (paragraph 231.1(1)(d)…), they cannot compel taxpayers to reveal their “soft spots”. … After referencing financial reporting obligations of public companies under provincial securities legislation including the accurate reporting of accrued taxes and before noting concerns of CPA Canada that required disclosure to CRA of tax accrual working papers would reduce the candour of disclosures by companies to their external auditors, he stated (at para. 86): By enacting subsection 231.1(1), Parliament could not have intended to vest the Minister with a power so sweeping that it would undermine those obligations. ...

. … With respect to the interpretation to be given to the word "knew", this Court clarified that a subjective test must be used to determine whether the requisite knowledge exists. ... That said, it is not enough to proclaim ignorance to escape sanctions; common sense and objective factors may be taken into account in deciding whether a claimant has a subjective knowledge of the falsity of his or her statements. … Before remitting the file to the SST-AD for a fresh decision, De Montigny JA stated (at para 14): By implicitly endorsing the decision of the SST-GD that the intent to defraud would be required for a person to "knowingly" make a false or misleading statement, the SST-AD erred. ...

. … [61] …[A] taxpayer should have the burden to prove, on a balance of probabilities, any facts that are alleged by that taxpayer in their notice of appeal and that are denied by the Crown. ... Woods JA, in also dismissing the appeal, stated that she agreed with the comments of Stratas JA, who stated (at para. 70) that he found “much of what [Webb JA said] … to be thoughtful, illuminating and attractive”, but also (at para. 71) that he declined “to express a definitive opinion on the correctness of his views on this fundamental point.” ...

Respecting the conflict between ss. 142(1)(d) and 142(2)(d), which respectively deemed a supply of a service in relation to real property inside Canada or outside Canada to be made in Canada or outside Canada – so that a single supply here, which would have related to both, would have been deemed to be made both inside and outside Canada, Dawson JA found (at para. 95) that in this context of services in relation to a cross-border real estate portfolio, there were two supplies, so that the services in relation to the Canadian and foreign real estate were taxable and non-taxable, respectively: I see no reason in principle that precludes splitting up the supply so that the supply is treated as two supplies in order to recognize that ultimately the services are inherently distinct in one important respect: the services relating to the operation of the vacation homes located in Canada are services in relation to real property situated in Canada and hence are a taxable supply – the services relating to the operation of the Intrawest vacation homes situated outside of Canada are services related to real property situated outside of Canada and hence are a non-taxable supply. ...