Search - 泉州木偶剧院 发票

In this regard, Rivoalen JA quoted the statement of the Tax Court (at para. 55 of its reasons) that “there was no evidence that the Appellant actually ceased to be a resident of the Netherlands or was continued under Canadian law,” and stated (at paras. 19-20): [S]ubsection 128.1(1) … provides only for the consequences of a taxpayer becoming resident of Canada. There is no additional requirement that the taxpayer must cease being a resident of its former State …. ...

ITA 231.2(3) and ETA s. 289(3) for Roofmart to disclose various particulars for all of its customers who in the past 4 ½ years had made purchases of construction materials from Roofmart exceeding specified dollar thresholds. ... He further stated (at para. 39) that the “fact that the UPR may target an unspecified or large number of accounts or that a significant amount of financial information may be captured does not affect its validity,” and (at para. 45) that “ GMREB established that a pending or existing tax audit of a particular individual is not a precondition to the exercise of power under subsection 231.2(3).” ...

The Tax Court had found: “[T]he parties believed that they had established a ‘contract of enterprise or for services’ [and not a contract of employment] …” (quoted at para. 10) However, the Tax Court had gone on to apply the four Wiebe tests referred to above, and concluded that "the objective reality of the employment relationship, including [such] factors … indicates that there was an employee/employer relationship" (quoted at para. 12). ...

In finding that the Tax Court lacked the authority, in proceedings instituted by the taxpayer (“BCS”) subject to the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), to permit BCS to be represented by the (non-lawyer) individual (“Gagnon”) who was its sole shareholder, director and officer – so that the Tax Court erred in finding “that Mr. Gagnon personified BCS and that he was exercising BCS’s right to appear ‘in person’” (para. 64), Gauthier JA stated (at paras. 6): … I have concluded that the legislator did not intend to oust the common law and civil law principle that a corporation, because of its very nature, cannot appear “in person” before a court. ...

Locke JA also found (at para. 36) that Pizzitelli J had not made reviewable errors in refusing to order production of unredacted copies of various other requested internal documents – and, in this regard, he agreed with Pizzitelli J’s application of the view “that earlier drafts of a final position paper do not have to be disclosed, and … that even where relevance is established, the Court has a residual discretion to refuse document production.” ...

Blue Bridge argued that it was the Minister’s responsibility to ensure that the “taxation … not contrary to the Convention” condition in Art. 26 was met before transmitting the requested information to France, whereas here, France was seeking to impose tax under a French wealth-tax statute which attributed all foreign trust assets to a French settlor or beneficiary in order to subject them to the tax, which in its view raised the possibility of the information being used to levy tax contrary to the Convention. ... She stated (at para. 47, TaxInterpretations translation): The judge rightly concluded that a requirement for thorough research and analysis of the facts and the law of the requesting State would impede the proper and effective operation of the Convention’s provisions …. ...

. … Thus, Public CO2 had the power to terminate the trustees’ functions by revoking or not renewing their mandate as directors. … [T]he mechanism put in place clearly gave Public CO2 the ability to change the appellant’s board of directors or to influence in a very direct manner those who had that ability. ...

., 2021 FCA 223-- summary under Subsection 152(3.4) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 152- Subsection 152(3.4) respective roles of Tax Court and Federal Court in reviewing CEWS claims CRA, which had taken the view that Iris Technologies in fact had not experienced a significant decline in its qualifying revenues during COVID, denied Iris’ CEWS (wage subsidy) claims – initially on the basis of exercising its discretion under s. 164(1.6), which provides that the Minister, before the time for filing the taxpayer’s return for the year, “may refund to the taxpayer all or any part of the [deemed CEWS] overpayment” arising under s. 125.7(2). ... Whether the Minister erred in determining that there was no overpayment is to be adjudicated in the Tax Court; whether the Minister erred in refusing to refund an overpayment is for the Federal Court to decide. … Rennie JA went on to find that in substance Iris’ application was a challenge to the Minister’s determination, reflected in the subsequent notice of determination made pursuant to s. 152(3.4), that Iris had not generated a CEWS (deemed overpayment) amount under s. 125.7(2), and found that Iris’ judicial review application should be struck. ...

For instance, the taxpayers now argued that each of the principals could have chosen to not form a Serviceco, whereas the terms of the Partnership Agreement appeared to provide that there was no such choice – so that “the evidence and factual findings in the Tax Court may well have been different had the parties been focussed before the Tax Court on the issue [now] raised by the Appellants …” (para. 29). ...

Khanna’s testimony that they shared the income from the rental properties they owned … nothing on the record address[ed] her involvement in or knowledge about the details of the rental business” (para. 17). ... She concluded (at para. 27): … As this Court has said, “[w]ilful blindness pivots on a finding that the taxpayer deliberately chose not to make inquiries in order to avoid verifying that which might be such an inconvenient truth. ...