Search - 泉州木偶剧院 发票

In finding that no penalty could be imposed, Monaghan JA noted (at para. 16) that essentially the only testimony was of the taxpayer’s husband, which “was almost entirely about his actions and inactions,” so that essentially “nothing on the record address[ed] her involvement in or knowledge about the details of the rental business … and nothing on the record establish[ed] whether … the appellant knew she had unreported income prior to receipt of the reassessments” (para. 18). ...

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. ...

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. ...

In confirming the decision of the Federal Court to the same effect, Rennie JA stated (at para. 21): The [latter] proposal letter … is not a reviewable decision or order. … [I]t did not determine any of the taxpayer’s rights, substantive or procedural…. Before so concluding, he stated (at paras 13, 17): The Notices of Reassessment having been issued, the question whether an injunction could have issued restraining their issuance pending determination of the second-level VDP application is moot. … [T]he reassessments are valid and binding until set aside by the Tax Court…. ...

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. ... Among other findings: “Diamond Fields paid the Fees in order to entice Falconbridge to make an offer pursuant to the merger arrangements” so that it was “reasonable to consider that the Fees were received by Falconbridge as an inducement for the purposes of s. 12(1)(x)” (para. 61 – and in this regard “the evidence as to Falconbridge’s motivation to negotiate a fee (i.e., to deter another bidder and to earn a profit if the bid failed) is not relevant to this issue” (para. 63); and “The Fees were linked to Falconbridge’s operations as a nickel mining company”, which “required access to ore deposits” so that they were received “in the course of” those activities (a phrase which was essentially equated with "in connection with") (para. 70); furthermore, “the Fees were linked to an acquisition of shares that had the capacity to produce property income” so that they were “also received in the course of earning income from property” (para. 71). ...

. … [T]he Tax Court concluded that leaving them as assumptions placed an onus on the respondents that they would not otherwise bear. ... An assumption that is a statement of mixed fact and law does not put any additional onus on the taxpayer … [since] “when the validity of the assessment is attacked in point of law…there is really no onus on either party ….” ... Further, the Tax Court did not consider whether leaving the assumptions as is would better serve the trial process. … [T]he Tax Court therefore erred in law …. ...

The Queen, 2009 TCC 70, to “enable … more extensive changes to be made to a statutory provision than were permitted by mutatis mutandis ” so that it was “no longer … limited to points of detail,” Evans J.A. remarked (at paras. 53-54): It is reasonable to conclude that when Parliament in 1983 replaced the Latin phrase in subsection 227(10) with "plain" English and French words it merely intended to make the provision more accessible. ...

Canada, 2020 FCA 47-- summary under Consistency Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Consistency presumption of consistent expression is not absolute In the context of his view that the determination of whether “Notes” held by an offshore fund in which the taxpayer was invested constituted “debt” should be determined in light of the text, context and purpose of the particular provision at issue (s. 94.1(1)(a)) rather than such determination being made for purposes of the Act as a whole, Noël CJ stated (at paras. 52-53): The parties also proceeded on the assumption that the meaning of debt is the same throughout the Act regardless of the provision in which this word is used …. The presumption of consistent expression supports this approach …. However, this presumption is not absolute. ...

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

In the result, he extracted $2M from the corporate group, of which approximately half corresponded to the deemed dividend received by him, and the other half, corresponding to the “soft” ACB of the shares was received free of tax – even though the PUC and “hard” ACB of the shares was nominal. ... In confirming the decision below to uphold this assessment, Noël CJ stated (at paras. 65, 77, 79 TaxInterpretations translation): The logic underlying this adjustment [in s. 84.1] rests on the fact, discussed above, that the paid-up capital and the ACB of the shares concerned reflect only the amounts which have been subjected to tax. … The object and spirit of this provision, or its rationale, is to prevent amounts which have not been subjected to tax to serve in extracting surplus of a corporation free of tax. ... To this end, subparagraph 84.1(2)(a.1)(ii) requires going beyond the ACB of the shares concerned – or of the shares for which they are substituted – and enquiring as to the source of the funds which constituted them in order to ascertain if they were subjected to tax. … This rationale was circumvented by the plan implemented by the appellant. ...