Search - 泉州木偶剧院 发票

Before rejecting these submissions, Mactavish JA noted (at para 40): … The Minister’s discretion must … be genuinely exercised, and must not be fettered or dictated by policy statements such as Income Tax Information Circular IC 07-1R1: Stemijon Investments Ltd. v. ... [and] noted that the [CRA] intercept letters gave the appellants the option of having their tax returns assessed without the … deductions. ... He considered the appellants’ submissions and explained why he was not persuaded that any additional relief was warranted …. ...

[in] Palmer … [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759 …. The evidence could not have been adduced at trial, it is relevant in that it bears on a decisive or potentially decisive issue on appeal, is credible, and could reasonably be expected to have affected the result in the Federal Court. ...

It follows that excluding an instrument from the ambit of the word debt simply because the amount which can ultimately be claimed will only be known when the term expires would effectively mean that Parliament has spoken in vain in providing for a “debt […] that may reasonably be considered to derive its value […] from portfolio investments”. [S]ubsection 94.1(1) … contemplates in express terms that an instrument that derives its value from fluctuating portfolio investments can be a debt. ... As these three conditions are present here—i.e. there was a USD 498 million advance made to each of the issuing banks, a resulting obligation on the part of the issuing banks to repay an amount equal to the value of the Reference Assets at maturity or upon early termination, and this amount was ascertainable with precision at the due date- this suffices to dispose of the appeal …. ...

A subsequent settlement agreement provided for the reinstatement of much of the losses, did not explicitly address the treatment of the gains – but referenced an ability of CRA to reassess to make “consequential adjustments.” ... The taxpayer also submitted that s. 152(5) prohibited the implementing reassessment from including the 1998 net gains allocations in his income because, although such income had been included in the initial (pre- 2002) assessment of his 1998 return, such initial assessment was not a reassessment “made … before the end of the [normal reassessment] period” because such quoted language "refers to only the particular …assessment, reassessment or additional assessment that is valid as of the end of the normal reassessment period” – whereas here, the 2002 reassessment had nullified the initial assessment. ... Savics was reassessed in 2002, the initial assessment … was still an assessment that was made before the end of his normal reassessment period. … [T]he Minister is precluded from including a new amount in computing a taxpayer’s income that had not been previously disclosed in relation to an assessment, reassessment or additional assessment made during that taxpayer’s 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. ...

However, she went on to find (at para. 34): … I need not address the Crown’s … argument that the Application should be struck because it is out of time. ...

. … The appellant also argues that he was denied procedural fairness because he legitimately and reasonably expected that he would be provided the same process considerations as the successful SDL Optics employees. … I disagree. The doctrine of legitimate expectation permits a court to grant appropriate procedural remedies – it cannot give rise to substantive rights. … The decision-maker reasonably found that the appellant’s circumstances were not similar to employees of SDL Optics. … The decision-maker reasonably concluded that …there were no extenuating circumstances as required by the [Canada Revenue Agency Remission Guide] guidelines. … The decisions to exercise the option to purchase the ZCL shares and to hold those shares were within the appellant’s control. ...

Canada, 2019 FCA 147-- summary under Supply Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 123- Subsection 123(1)- Supply no supplies between PEs of the same person in the absence of s. 132(4) Noël C.J indicated (at para. 42) that s. 132(4) dealt with the situation where “two permanent establishments are involved – one in Canada and one outside Canada – neither of which are legal persons on their own account, with the result that each had to be deemed to be a person that is separate from the other in order for cross-border supplies between them to be recognized.” ...

In the course of upholding the finding that this was a misrepresentation attributable to neglect, thus allowing the taxpayer to be assessed beyond the normal reassessment period (see summary under s. 152(4)(a)(i)), Webb JA disagreed with the trial judge's statement that "if the Minister establishes that there is a right to reassess after the expiration of the normal period, the onus will then shift to the taxpayer" to show that the failure to include the amount in the return was not due to a misrepresentation attributable to neglect, carelessness or wilful default, stating (at paras. 24-25): [T]he onus is on the Minister to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the taxpayer or the person filing the return … has made a misrepresentation; and … such misrepresentation is attributable to neglect, carelessness, or willful default.... ...

Canada, 2019 FCA 5-- summary under Subsection 169(2.2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 169- Subsection 169(2.2) taxpayers had given valid waivers given full knowledge of the rights which they had unequivocably waived Rossiter CJ had found that the taxpayers had given valid waivers of their right to appeal: even though the waiver letter drafted by CRA was “poorly worded … if read in its entirety … there is a sufficient and adequate explanation in the letter [such] that a person would have full knowledge of the rights being waived.” ...

In finding that the taxpayer’s statement of claim should be struck, Woods JA applied the principle that even “if … a party is a stranger to a transaction, the transaction must still be described with sufficient detail that the other party can identify it” (para. 80) and noted, regarding the taxpayer’s allegation (para. 76) that the Audit Division shared information gathered from the requirement letters with criminal investigators, that “the statement of claim did not identify with particularity any criminal investigation into the Respondent” (para. 82) and that the “pleading does not link the alleged sharing of information to any particular criminal investigation” (para. 83). Furthermore, although a general statement of the Minister suggested “that audits may precede criminal investigations … this is permitted in Jarvis ” (para. 72). ...