Search - 泉州木偶剧院 发票

. … Since the comments in Stemijon... that administrative guidance cannot change the law are applicable when the Minister has discretion, they are also applicable when the Minister does not have the broad discretion under the Act to refuse the registration of a CAAA as a RCAAA, other than when the conditions in subsection 149.1(25) of the Act are satisfied. … The guidance as previously drafted by the CRA cannot bind the Minister nor can it alter the provisions of the statutory definition of a CAAA. ...

Canada, 2021 FCA 182-- summary under Sham Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Sham no requirement for the Crown to explicitly plead “sham” Hogan J had found that a tax shelter partnership, which had funded the prints and advertising expenses for films that it had purchased from Twentieth Century Fox, had not incurred such expenses for an income-producing purpose because there was no real prospect that Fox would not exercise its “options” to repurchase the films – and thus no real prospect that the films would generate revenue to the partnership. ... In concluding that it was not procedurally unfair for Hogan J to make his finding quoted above given what the Crown had pleaded, and after quoting those pleadings, Woods JA stated (at paras. 17, 19): These assumptions were pleaded to put the appellants on notice that the Minister took the view that it was a certainty that the partnerships would not have any income from the exploitation of the films. … The label of “sham” that the Court attached to the arrangement does not mean that the appellants did not have notice of the case they had to meet. ...

Monaghan JA indicated (at para. 52) that the question of whether a due-back constituted pensionable salary and wages for purposes of the Canada Pension Plan Act, or insurable earnings for purposes of the Employment Insurance Act, turned on the “question … whether, based on the relevant facts in the case, the amount in question is paid by the employer to the employee in respect of their employment.” ... Moreover, nothing in the legislation suggests that, to qualify as an amount in respect of employment, the amount must be calculated in a particular way, or with reference to hours worked or sales or any other measurable factor. … Furthermore, the due-backs were paid by the appellant to the servers (para. 37): [T]here is no dispute the electronic tips came into possession of the appellant or that the appellant transferred the due-back, representing a portion of those electronic tips, to the servers. ...

In confirming the dismissal of their action, Boivin JA noted that: “The Judge recognized that the CRA investigators owed the appellants a duty of care … but found that the investigation was not carried out in a manner that could be characterized as negligent and was not motivated by malice or any other improper purpose” (para. 6). ... Regarding the appellants’ contention “that the procedures set out in the Taxation Operations Manual (TOM) 11 for CRA investigations were not properly followed … the Judge rightly noted that the TOM 11 ‘is a set of guidelines that have no binding legal effect and their breach is not evidence per se of a wrongful prosecution or negligence’” (paras. 11, 13). ...

In rejecting NBI’s claim of privilege, Kane J had stated that the spreadsheet was not more than the mere “operational outcome or end product of legal advice” and did not satisfy the requirement that it “communicate … the very legal advice given by counsel.” ... Regarding NBI’s submission (at para. 5) that “the Federal Court erred in putting it in an untenable position whereby it would have to reveal privileged information in order to adduce evidence of sufficient detail to convince the Federal Court that privileged information would be revealed,” Locke JA stated inter alia (at para. 6) that “NBI has … not convinced us that it could have corrected this insufficiency if it had referred to privileged information.” ...

. … To conclude otherwise would reward non-compliance with legitimate document requests from the Minister. In briefly rejecting NBI’s submission (at para. 8) “that ordering production of the unredacted Spreadsheet amounts to requiring NBI to conduct a self-audit or to reveal its ‘soft spots’,” he stated that “we find that the decision of this Court in BP Canada … is distinguishable.” ...

What mattered at the time … was “the relationship of the person acquiring the [house] to the builder—one of purchase and sale—[…], not the relationship between co-purchasers” (Cheema at para. 94). ... Chen’s submission (at para. 12) that “the majority’s reasons were undermined by amendments that were brought to the Act in 2021 [to s. 262(3)], Leblanc JA stated (also at para. 12) that “there is no indication … that the 2021 amendments were made strictly for clarification purposes.” ...

However, the TFSA submitted that the exemption from tax for an RRSP on business income from the disposition of qualified investments in s. 146(4)(b)) should be read into s. 146.2(6) given that the RRSP and TFSA regimes were “mirror images” of each other – so that “that the phrase ‘carries on one or more businesses’ in subsection 146.2(6) should be read so that a TFSA trust that carries on a business of trading investments under well-established common law principles should not be considered to carry on a business for purposes of subsection 146.2(6) when the business involves only trading in qualified investments” (para. 12). In rejecting this submission, and before dismissing the appeal, Biringer JA stated (at para. 13): We agree with the Tax Court that the appellant’s reading is unsupported by the text, context, and purpose of subsection 146.2(6), and would amount to a re-drafting of the provision …. ...

[Thus] … there was an avoidance transaction since the series of transactions would, but for the GAAR, result in a tax benefit – a reductio ...

However, she stated (at para. 32): A finding of a breach of procedural fairness renders a decision liable to be overturned …. However, where the result is inevitable, a court may exercise its discretion to not grant a remedy for the breach …. ...