Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

Canada (Attorney General), 2017 BCSC 994-- summary under Rectification & Rescission Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Rectification & Rescission taking back excess boot could not be rectified under the BCA provision for correcting “corporate” mistakes 627291 B.C. ... There has not been: (a) a breach of a provision of the BCA, a former Company Act or the regulations under any of them; (b) a default in compliance with the memorandum, notice of articles or articles of the company; and … (c) none of the following proceedings at or in connection with any of the following have been rendered ineffective: (i) a meeting of shareholders; (ii) a meeting of the directors or of a committee of directors; (iii) any assembly purporting to be a meeting referred to in subparagraph (i) or (ii); and (d) a consent resolution or records purporting to be a consent resolution has not been rendered ineffective. … [T]he mistake of not completing the Transaction in the most tax effective manner does not … fall within these subsections. ... Mayer J further found (at para 40 and 41): Even if the Greither Estate was seeking the remedy of equitable rectification, … I am not satisfied that the facts of this case would justify such relief…. ...

Dawson (quoted at para. 27): First, there must be a pre-ordained series of transactions; or, if one likes, one single composite transaction. …. ... It by no means follows that the Ramsay approach should be incapable of applying wherever the ultimate purchaser and price cannot be identified. … The FTT considered that the sale to Merrill Lynch "sufficiently corresponded to the scheme as planned" and commented that it "would be extraordinary if the application of the Ramsay approach could be defeated by the sale being to brokers rather than to the market by brokers on behalf of the Irish Trustees" …. The UT held that the FTT had been entitled to conclude that the involvement of Merrill Lynch made no material difference …. ...

Anderson v Benson Trithardt Noren LLP, 2016 SKCA 120, aff'd 2017 SCC CanLii 8568-- summary under Rectification & Rescission Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Rectification & Rescission drop-down documents could not be declared retroactive to the previously-agreed effective date, as this would undercut the Tax Court The taxpayer’s accountants met with him on October 6, 2011, when it was agreed that he would transfer personally-owned land and equipment on s. 85 rollover basis to his corporation in order to facilitate paying off a loan owing by him to the corporation. ... In dismissing the appeal, Lane J. stated (at paras 29, 34): … The Chambers judge was correct to limit the application of the rectification remedy as he did. He saw the application for a declaration for what it was – an attempt to obtain equitable relief not available from the Tax Court, which is a superior court of record but not a court of inherent jurisdiction, and to thereby attempt to determine the outcome of an assessment appeal by essentially binding the hands of that Court. … The Chambers judge properly limited his decision to the issue between the appellants themselves. ...

Samson, 2023 QCCA 332-- summary under Rectification & Rescission Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Rectification & Rescission date of Quebec agreement did not reflect the parties’ existing intention to realize a loss The respondent (Samson) and a corporation (Bourgade) implemented a plan set out in a tax-planning memo of a tax advisor that contemplated that they would transfer their shares of a corporation (CRP) in December 2013 after having satisfied the conditions for realizing a business investment loss under s. 50(1)(b)(iii). This result was premised on their having had a November 30, 2013 taxation year – which had occurred for Bourgade, but not for Samson who, as an individual, had a calendar taxation year. ... This is not a case where the taxpayer is seeking a tax benefit that he did not anticipate at the time of his tax planning. … The answer might have been different if the rectification had given the taxpayer an additional tax benefit that he had not anticipated at the time of his tax planning. ...

Development Securities (No. 9) Ltd & Ors v HMRC, [2017] UKFTT 565 (TC), rev'd [2019] UKUT 169 but FTT decision confirmed at [2020] EWCA Civ 1705-- summary under Subsection 2(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 2- Subsection 2(1) a Jersey sub, whose board approved in Jersey a decision contrary to the sub’s interests, resided in the U.K. ... Morgan J first noted (at paras 406, 412): …In reality, … the [Jersey] companies’ real business was to undertake the parent’s plan for the realisation of enhanced capital losses through the acquisition of assets at an overvalue under call option arrangements. … It is inherent in the uncommercial nature of what was proposed or, in other words, that lack of any commercial benefit … that the board were undertaking to implement the necessary steps from the outset on the “say so” of the parent (subject to the legality issue). … In finding that the Jersey companies had their central management and control in the U.K. at all relevant times, so that the appeal was dismissed, she concluded (at paras 426 and 430): Unlike Wood v Holden … this was not a case where the board considered a proposal and, having taken appropriate advice, decided that it was in the best interests of the companies to enter into it. ... The Jersey board were simply administering a decision they were instructed to undertake by DS Plc, in checking the legality of the plan and then administering the other consequent actions prior to handing over completely to the UK group. … In effect, the Jersey board merely rubber stamped the decision to move control back to the UK, having fulfilled the terms of their engagement. ...

., 2020 ONSC 5343-- summary under Rectification & Rescission Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Rectification & Rescission jurisdiction declined in a requested shareholding rectification whose raison d’être was a CRA assessment In order to avoid a deemed disposition under the s. 104(4) 21-year deemed realization rule, two family trusts for the children of Mr. ... In declining to assume jurisdiction, Koehnen J stated (at paras 32, 35): … [T]he Tax Court has jurisdiction to interpret s. 23(3) of the OBCA. … Parliament has created a specific court with expertise in tax matters and has created a specific process to address tax issues. ... The corporate records accurately reflect that intention. … [T]he applicants do not require a court order to correct the books and records of the Child Corporations. ...

A.G. of Canada, 2015 QCCA 837-- summary under Rectification & Rescission Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Rectification & Rescission thin cap issues were not considered at time of paying a dividend The appellant, which was a wholly-owned Ontario subsidiary of a Quebec corporation ("CTI"), paid a $136 million dividend to CTI in connection with a "Quebec shuffle" transaction. ... In finding that the appellant could not retroactively rectify the dividend so as to be a stated capital distribution instead, and after noting (at para. 34) that AES and Riopel dealt with related parties committing an error in giving effect to a "legitimate corporate transaction for the purpose of avoiding, deferring or minimizing tax" and correcting "that error to achieve the tax consequences originally and specifically intended and agreed upon," Schrager JA stated (at para. 43): The payment of the 136 million dollar dividend to CTI was intended and was effected. … Reduction of capital was not intended. The unintended consequences of the dividend, by ricochet, resulted from the thin capitalization rules and was not part and parcel of the transaction. … There was no common intention of the parties regarding these rules as they were never contemplated and so cannot be the object of a meeting of the minds to which a court can give effect. ...

Revenue and Customs v NCL Investments Ltd & Anor, [2022] UKSC 9-- summary under Contract Modification or Grant Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 18- Subsection 18(1)- Paragraph 18(1)(b)- Capital Expenditure v. Expense- Contract Modification or Grant employee stock option expenses were as a general matter sustained on income account The taxpayers, which were required by s. 46 of Corporation Tax Act 2009 to calculate the “profits of [their] trade … in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice, subject to any adjustment required or authorised by law,” were found by the Court to be thereby authorized to deduct the expenses (“Debits”) recognized under IFRS when they granted stock options to employees through an employee benefit trust established by their parent. In finding that this deduction was not precluded by s. 53 of the same Act, which provided that “[i]n calculating the profits of a trade, no deduction is allowed for items of a capital nature,” Lord Hamblen and Lady Rose accepted (at para. 55) the findings of the First-tier Tribunal that the taxpayers’ “employees operate in a professional services business whose success depends on the availability of skilled and motivated professionals and the grant of share options to those employees is part of their remuneration package” and that the “Debits were … recurring costs that had a connection with the Appellants’ earning of income ….” ...

MNR, 92 DTC 1497 (TCC)-- summary under Payment & Receipt Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Payment & Receipt payment references funds transfer A taxpayer was ordered in 1984 to retain arrears of alimentary allowance that had accumulated from March 1983 onward to be applied against an amount owing to him by his estranged wife. In finding that the alimentary allowance was not "paid" by him for purposes of s. 60(b), and was not "received" by her for purposes of s. 56(1)(b), Garon J. stated (p. 1499): "... ...

Associated Newspapers Ltd v HM Revenue & Customs, [2017] EWCA Civ 54, [2017] BVC 10-- summary under Procurative Extent Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 141.02- Subsection 141.02(1)- Procurative Extent purchases made for promotional free on-supplies were part of the VAT-creditable overheads of a taxable business The appellant (“ANL”) promoted circulation of its Sunday newspapers by first purchasing vouchers from retailers such as Marks & Spencer and from an intermediary ("Hut"), and providing such vouchers to readers, who purchased the newspaper during the promotional period, who then could redeem the vouchers with the retailer against the purchase of goods. (The purchases of vouchers from Marks & Spencer were found later in the judgment to not be subject to VAT.) ... The fact that the vouchers were provided free to buyers of the newspapers merely serves to confirm that they were cost components of the business rather than the onward supply of the vouchers. … [A] simple causative test of whether the newspapers could have been produced and sold without the benefit of the vouchers does not answer the question of whether the cost of the vouchers was economically a cost component of those supplies and that business when the vouchers were acquired in order to sell the papers. ...