Search - 水晶光电 行业地位 发展趋势

9 May 2021- 9:58pm CRA acknowledges that Cameco may limit the use of s. 247(2)(d) recharacterization – and that s. 247(2)(c) must take into account the parties’ relationship Email this Content Regarding the CRA response to the TCC and FCA decisions in Cameco, CRA stated “that these decisions may limit situations where the re-characterization provision in paragraphs 247(2)(b) and (d) could be applied … [h]owever, the CRA will continue to consider the application of the re-characterization provision where appropriate.” CRA further stated: The CRA will continue to administer … 247(2)(a) and (c) in a manner consistent with the guidance … [in] General Electric [para. 54]: “…The task in any given case is to ascertain the price that would have been paid in the same circumstances if the parties had been dealing at arm’s length. ...

However, it was precluded by statute from going back more than three years with its refund claims – but there was no such time limitation where a repayment of VAT was claimed based on there being “a decrease in consideration for a supply.” ... Lord Legatt stated: What is required … is a change in the consideration actually received by the supplier. … All that has happened is that the taxpayer has had second thoughts about how the consideration received at the time of the supply should be analysed for tax purposes. A similar issue could arise under ETA s. 232, which provides for a potential GST/HST reduction where, after GST/HST has been charged on the consideration for a supply, “for any reason, the consideration … is subsequently reduced.” ...

Each objected – but no appeal to the Tax Court had yet been launched. ... Pikes had never been paid for by them, contrary to s. 23(3) of the OBCA), stating: … [T]he Tax Court has jurisdiction to interpret s. 23(3) of the OBCA. … Parliament has created a specific court with expertise in tax matters and has created a specific process to address tax issues. ... Summary of Mandel v. 1909975 Ontario Inc., 2020 ONSC 5343 under General Concepts – Rectification. ...

15 October 2020- 12:04am Bouclair – Court of Quebec orders a stay of a federal tax evasion prosecution based on an ARQ audit file gathered for Quebec civil penalty purposes Email this Content A Revenue Quebec audit team gathered incriminating evidence respecting the alleged diversion of company funds to pay for the construction of a chalet for its CEO (by allegedly paying false invoices directed to it by the builder). RQ did not accord any of the Jarvis protections to the company and its CEO, because it had no intention of criminally prosecuting – it was content to impose the equivalent of s. 163(2) penalties (in addition to the tax) – as did CRA, a year later, following the RQ lead. ... However, he stated that he could not “condone … a practice” of using a “treasure trove of ready-made files for ‘investigation’ and prosecution containing uncautioned conscripted evidence,” as “otherwise, the Jarvis protections simply melt away.” ...

2 January 2021- 9:43pm La Mancha Group – Federal Court of Australia finds that an absorptive merger of a Dutch into a Lux company rendered the Lux survivor as the “taxpayer” for continuing or launching objections Email this Content A condition precedent to the merger of a Netherlands private limited company (“LMGI”) into its sister company (“LMA”), which was a Luxembourg private limited liability company (with LMA as the survivor) was that the Federal Court of Australia confirm that LMA as legal successor would be able to exercise all objection or appeal rights in relation to current and pending assessments of LMGI’s taxation years by the Australian Commissioner. Before providing such declaration, Davies J stated, based on the expert law testimony: Under European law, Luxembourg law and Dutch law, pursuant to the principle of universal succession … all liabilities of LMGI to tax, including under foreign law (that is, the relevant Australian tax acts), will transfer to LMA by operation of law pursuant to the principle of universal succession upon completion of the merger, as will the rights and obligations of LMGI in respect of such tax liabilities …. ... Moreover, LMA, as the “taxpayer” under s 175A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) … will be entitled to object against assessments which have been issued to LMGI, or which are issued to LMA in its place, and will be “the person” entitled to appeal … in relation to objections from those assessments …. ...

21 March 2021- 10:30pm Savics – Federal Court of Appeal finds that s. 152(5) permits the restoration of an initial assessment of income that had been previously reversed by reassessment Email this Content To present simplified facts, a taxpayer reported losses from a film distribution LP of $300 per year in Years 1 through 3 and also reported (and was initially assessed for) the $100 of income-account gains that was allocated to him by the LP for Year 4. ... The taxpayer then argued that the Year 19 reassessment was invalid because it did not satisfy s. 152(5), which prohibits the Minister from reassessing beyond the normal reassessment period to include income that “was not included in computing the taxpayer’s income for the purposes for an assessment, reassessment or additional assessment made … before the end of [that] period.” ... Savics was reassessed in [Year 7], the initial assessment … was still an assessment that was made before the end of his normal reassessment period. … I do not accept that the purpose of subsection 152(5) … is to prevent the Minister, in reassessing a taxpayer under subsection 165(3) … from restoring a taxpayer to their original filing position by reinstating a particular source and amount of income that had been reported by the taxpayer, assessed as filed, and then subsequently deleted as a result of a reassessment. ...

This occurred – the offer of another public company (Inco – the 25% minority shareholder) was accepted by the Diamond Fields shareholders, thereby triggering the payment by Diamond Fields of the break fee. ... The break fee did not qualify as proceeds of disposition of a Falconbridge right to merge, as she did not consider there to be such a right: Diamond Fields could not promise the acceptance by its shareholders of the Falconbridge offer nor could it fetter the fiduciary obligations of its board – there was no capital gain. ... Canada, 2024 FCA 3 under s. 9 – compensation payments, s. 248(1) – property and s. 12(1)(x). ...

This KPMG plan, if it worked, had the tax advantage over the base case of permitting the tax-free distribution of the Gennium surplus to the family members by Satoma Trust – but instead, the Gennium dividends were retained in Satoma Trust for reinvestment. ... Pilon informed of the risk of applying the GAAR did not end in 2005. … Timely advice on CRA's new approach could have led to rectification of the structure and minimized both the risk and the extent of an assessment. ... KPMG, 2024 QCCS 760 under General Concepts – Negligence. ...

19 March 2025- 11:20pm Csak – FCA confirms a s. 160 challenge on the basis that a TCC judgment of the transferor was incorrect, and confirms that a waiver time limit falling on a Sunday was extended Email this Content The taxpayer challenged assessments of her under s. 160(2) respecting unpaid tax of her late husband for his 1988 and 1989 taxation year by arguing that the CRA assessments of him for those years were statute-barred given that CRA had not received a waiver on a timely basis (which had been found by Owen J to be the case for his 1988 taxation year and, in the case of his 1989 taxation year, turned on the proposition that the receipt by CRA of a waiver on a Monday was one day following the expiry of the normal reassessment period on the Sunday). ... It provides relief when the time limit for doing a thing expires on a holiday, allowing the thing to be done on the next day that is not a holiday. … I am satisfied that the filing of a waiver is the “doing of a thing” for the purposes of section 26 …. … I do not view the time limited for filing a waiver as conceptually different for this purpose from the deadlines for filing a notice of objection or notice of appeal …. ... Csak, 2025 FCA 60 under s. 160(2), s. 152(4)(a)(ii) and General Concepts – Abuse of Process. ...

These factors are addressed in the TD Securities decision. … These conclusions are within the range of possible outcomes of the MAP process. ... CGI … filed its Notice of Application for Judicial Review… only a few days after the request for an assessment. ... Summaries of CGI Holding LLC v MNR, 2016 FC 1086 under Treaties – Art. 4 and s. 227(10.1). ...