Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

Ahmed J found that the decision was unreasonable, stating (at 23-25): … [T]he LAS Officer’s opinion letter lacks any real analysis of … whether the exception to statute barred dates in section 152(4)(a)(i) could be applied. … [This] is an inadequate analysis. ... In light of the conclusory analysis which does not conduct any textual, contextual, and purposive analysis as the Supreme Court of Canada requires, I agree with the Applicant that the decision is unreasonable. … ...

., they were addressed to them personally, and stated inter alia: Your personal income tax returns and any other related or associated entities have been selected for audit …. [Y]ou may have offshore holdings that you have failed to disclose …. In order to expedite and facilitate our audit, we will require a clear understanding of all entities with which you had a connection or affiliation during the taxation years noted above. … Please send us back the attached questionnaire fully completed within 30 days …. ...

. … A communication revealing the name of a law firm or lawyer – without anything else, such as actual legal advice – is not a confidential communication made for the purpose of receiving legal advice from a lawyer acting in a legal capacity. ...

After noting (at para. 9) that the applicant had not demonstrated that “the respondents in fact agreed to not raise reassessments for tax years prior to the tax years in question in the applicant’s voluntary disclosure,” and in rejecting the applicant’s application for an injunction prohibiting the Minister from issuing the proposed reassessments, Martineau J stated (at para 10): [A]s this is a question of the possible merits of a prohibition to prevent the exercise of discretion that is clearly assigned to the Minister by the ITA — that of issuing a reassessment — it must be noted that the applicant was unable to cite any specific jurisprudence in this regard, and even less so for a motion for an interlocutory injunction aimed at suspending, to the sole benefit of the applicant, the application of a law of general application such as the ITA, the constitutionality of which is not in question. After further noting that, under ss. 165(3) and 171, the Tax Court had the power to cancel an assessment, he stated (at para. 13): …The public interest — i.e. the orderly application of the ITA — takes precedence here over the financial and other inconveniences that the applicant may face by having, like all taxpayers, to follow the normal challenge procedure set out in the ITA. ...

. … There is no evidence that the Applicant was intentionally neglecting or avoiding its responsibility to maintain proper records. ... …[T]he Delegate made the statement that “the taxpayer did not demonstrate that sufficient action was taken to remedy this situation within a reasonable timeframe as returns continued to remain outstanding until 2012” without clarification of what “sufficient action” was expected, and what “reasonable timeframe” was expected. … I find that the statement constitutes the delivery of a punishment to the Applicant for perceived failure to meet the Delegate’s unclear expectations. … [N]o argument was presented … that the finding is supportable in fact or law. ...

In dismissing the taxpayer’s application for judicial review of the Minister’s decision to impose the penalties, Shirzad J stated (at paras 37, and 38): … If taxpayers could re-characterize taxable income or benefits as non-taxable benefits in their applications to the VDP and thereby escape penalties from future audits for having “disclosed” the amounts in this application, it would be contrary to the purpose of the VDP and its public policy rationale, which is meant to promote compliance with Canada’s tax laws by encouraging taxpayers to voluntarily come forward and correct previous omissions in their dealings with the CRA. … [T]he potential assessment of penalties even after an acceptance to the VDP will encourage taxpayers to be more diligent in their VDP applications, and to ensure that they exercise a high degree of care when submitting their VDP applications to ensure completeness and accuracy. … [T]o interpret the Information Circular as promising protection from penalties even on the non-taxable amounts disclosed by the taxpayer would put taxpayers applying to the VDP in a better position than the ordinary taxpayers. … Given his background, the Applicant was knowledgeable about tax matters, and it raises suspicions as to whether the Applicant may have been attempting to avoid penalties on his loans by characterizing them as non-taxable, but including them in his VDP application. ...

. … We have to confirm that … there are no circumstances that would support the cancellation of the tax on excess TFSA contributions. ... Sangha’s circumstances. … [T]he Decision was not reasonable. I find that the Decision does not reflect a coherent assessment of the relevant law and significant facts and submissions from the record and that the Minister’s refusal to exercise their discretion was not intelligible or justified. ... The guidance in Vavilov makes clear the importance of looking to the reasons given by an administrative decision maker and warns the reviewing court against providing supplemental reasons to buttress the result in the decision in question …. ...

. … [T]he Assistant Commissioner … [also] simply stated the principle that errors or omissions by tax professionals “are not considered extenuating circumstances for the purpose of remission” and then treated it as a complete answer to the applicant’s submission. … Given the importance to the applicant’s request of the question of whether any errors or omissions by the tax professionals who assisted the applicant could constitute an extenuating circumstance or, more broadly, made it unreasonable or unjust to recover the 2005/2006 debt, it was essential that the Assistant Commissioner explain why he concluded that they did not. … [I]t is insufficient to simply state the rule without also explaining why an exception should not be made in this case. ...

Before setting aside and remitted to the Minister for redetermination, Walker J stated (at para. 63): … The Minister’s delegate … imports equitable requirements specific to rectification and rescission without acknowledging any difference in the remedies sought. … They requested only the amendment of the Original Elections, as contemplated in subsection 85(7.1). The Minister’s delegate erred when he stated, “[y]our request is similar to the request Canada Life put forward, in which [the] ONCA said, ‘The court cannot substitute one series of transactions for another to avoid an unintended tax result’”. … ...

. … Intentions can change, as can the scope of the proposed disclosure. … The potential scope of the Disclosure could not be determined without further investigation by Plaintiff and her counsel. … I agree with the Respondent that there is an important distinction between the date information is actually disclosed under the VDP and the date the taxpayer makes the decision to investigate the making of a disclosure. ... Gagnon or the VDP to accept his request for disclosure. … His requests sought to complete the record. ...