Search - 泉州木偶剧院 发票

Leblanc JA agreed, stating (at para. 66, TaxInterpretations translation): [I]t would be incongruous, to say the least, if provisions purporting to assist a taxpayer caused more harm to a well-meaning taxpayer than to a less well-meaning one …. This cannot be the result that Parliament intended …. Accordingly, he found (at para. 69) that the "amount" referred to in ss. 280 and 280.1 on which the interest or late-filing penalty was to be calculated “can only represent, in circumstances such as these, the amount of tax actually owed by the taxpayer” (i.e., the tax as reduced by the taxpayer’s rebate entitlement). ...

Quoting (at para. 17 of her reasons) Canada Safeway, she stated: That the appellant may have “contemplated the possibility of resale of [the shares] is not, in itself, sufficient to conclude … the existence of an adventure in the nature of trade” …. ...

Canada, 2020 FCA 97-- summary under Onus Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Onus Tax Court could determine a taxable benefit percentage (different from that assumed by the Minister) based on all the evidence The founder and controlling shareholder of Cirque du Soleil, had been found by the Tax Court to have received a taxable benefit under s. 15(1) (or alternatively, under s. 246(1)) equalling approximately 90% of the $41.8 million cost of sending him on a trip to the international space station (ISS) in September and October 2009, given that the cost was borne by his family holding company and then largely passed through to the top operating company (“Créations Méandres “) in the Cirque du Soleil group, but with there being a matching contribution of capital by the holding company to Créations Méandres so that independent shareholders would not bear any of the cost of the trip. ... There, the appellant argued that he had succeeded in demolishing the assumptions of fact contained in the Minister’s Reply and asserted that his appeal therefore had to be allowed. … [T]his Court [instead] adopted the same approach to valuation taken by the Tax Court in the instant case and calculated the value of the shareholder benefit at the end of the case based upon all the evidence tendered. ...

Akbari … never intended to occupy the property as his primary residence.... … It is the relationship of the person acquiring the complex to the builder—one of purchase and sale—that is relevant, not the relationship between co-purchasers. ... Akbari was acquiring the complex only as a trustee is of no consequence. … [S]ection 254 [does not] provide any exception for trustees.... ...

., 2018 FCA 166-- summary under Subsection 160(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 160- Subsection 160(1) stock dividend followed by redemption of the stock dividend shares effected in combination a transfer of property for no consideration Income account treatment of the profits realized by a condo-project limited partnership was avoided through the corporate partners (the Partnercos) of the partnership paying safe income dividends (out of the realized but unallocated condo profits) to their respective Holdco shareholders through the payment of stock dividends of preferred shares followed by a redemption of those preferred shares – in turn, followed by a sale by the Holdcos of the Partnercos to a public company with substantial resource pools (Nuinsco). ... After first finding that the allocation of the income to Nuinsco rather than to the Partnercos represented an abusive avoidance for purposes of s. 245(4) of ss. 96(1)(f) and 103(1), Woods JA went on to find that s. 160 would have applied to the transfer of property of the Partnercos to the Holdcos effected through the preferred share stock dividends and redemptions but for the fact that the associated tax liability did not arise until the income was allocated to an arm's length person (Nuinsco), stating (at paras. 112, 115): The stock dividends and the redemption together resulted in a transfer of cash “indirectly … by any means whatever” from Partnerco to Holdco without consideration. … Although the Algoa Trust decision deals with a cash dividend, the combination in this case of stock dividends followed by a redemption has the same effect and similarly results in a transfer of property without consideration. ...

Canada, 2013 FCA 65, the question was whether the record “establishes that the virtually uncontested acts of non-compliance on the part of the Charity can be regarded as ‘serious’ or ‘aggravated’, ” Ryer JA agreed with the first ground as a sufficient basis for revocation, stating (at paras. 14 and 15): [T]he Charity failed to provide the Minister with books and records that would allow the Minister to determine if the appropriate amount of income tax relief was being provided by the Charity to its donors at the expense of the fisc. ...

Hence, the majority concluded that both errors were reviewable—errors of law are reviewable under the correctness standard via the statutory appeal mechanism in subsection 68(1) of the Customs Act, while errors of fact are reviewable under the reasonableness standard through an application for judicial review …. ...

In reversing the finding below that Emergis could not deduct such tax because such tax could (in accordance with the exception at the end of s. 20(12)) “reasonably be regarded as having been paid by a corporation [Emergis] in respect of income from a share … of a foreign affiliate [the LLC],” Webb JA and Goyette JA indicated: “[I]t would not be reasonable to regard the US Government as imposing a tax in respect of the income from the shares of LLC, as the US Government did not recognize the separate existence of LLC” (para. 28). ... It appeared that s. 20(12) was enacted “(a) because foreign taxes, not being incurred to earn income, are not deductible (paragraph 18(1)(a) …); and (b) to address the limitations in subsection 126(1) …, one of them being the unavailability of a credit when the income on which the tax imposed by the foreign government has no foreign source” – so that here, as Emergis did not have a source of income in the US “[a]llowing it to benefit from the subsection 20(12) deduction would therefore be in line with the purpose of this provision.” ...

While these other factors are indicative of operational control, they are not the result of a legally-enforceable arrangement … [and are] factors that McGillivray determined to be irrelevant …. ... Silva’s ability to make the two companies disregard the terms of the development agreement – as he decided to do when he unilaterally decided that the 5% mark-up [under the Development Agreement] would not be paid to ADC. …[I]t would be difficult to imagine a stronger indicator of a non-arm’s length relationship than the fact that a company is allowed to operate out of another’s facility for free, without a lease. … Words and Phrases supply contract ...

For instance, respecting s. 132(4), he stated (at para. 42): [T]he reference to two separate persons in subsection 132(4) can be explained by the fact that 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. ...