Search - 赤峰 二中 初中学区划分 2002

(“Spike Marks” or the “appellant”) in respect of seven decisions (the “Decisions”) of the Canadian Border Services Agency (the “CBSA”) with respect to the classification of goods under the Customs Tariff, S.C. 1997, c. 36, and the imposition of duties under sections 42 and 43 of the Excise Act, 2001, S.C. 2002, c. 22. ... Nikolaisen, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, 2002 SCC 33).   Analysis [12]            At the heart of this appeal is the question of whether the CBSA has the power to assess or impose a liability on Spike Marks for the duties referred to in sections 42 and 43 of the Excise Act, 2001 in respect of the importation of the tobacco products under consideration, or whether the CBSA is only empowered to collect those duties once they have been imposed by the Minister of National Revenue in accordance with subsection 188(1) of the Excise Act, 2001 ... Michael Ryer” J.A.     APPENDIX Excise Act, 2001, S.C. 2002, c. 22.   42. (1) Duty is imposed on tobacco products manufactured in Canada or imported and on imported raw leaf tobacco at the rates set out in Schedule 1 and is payable   (a) in the case of tobacco products manufactured in Canada, by the tobacco licensee who manufactured the tobacco products, at the time they are packaged; and   (b) in the case of imported tobacco products or raw leaf tobacco, by the importer, owner or other person who is liable under the Customs Act to pay duty levied under section 20 of the Customs Tariff or who would be liable to pay that duty on the tobacco or products if they were subject to that duty ...

BETWEEN:                                               SVEDALA INDUSTRIES CANADA INC.                                                                                                                                                        ... Justice Campbell (reported at (2002), 226 F.T.R. 76). The issue, in our view, had been correctly decided by Mr. ... FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL                               NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET:                                                                                    A-41-03 APPEAL FROM THE REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA DATED DECEMBER 20, 2002, FILE NO. ...

Eventually, notices of reassessment were issued to the respondent for the 1990 and 1991 taxation years in September 2000 and August 2002 respectively. [4]                The Agency having taken no action to collect the tax debts before the expiry of the limitation periods, the respondent filed his application for judicial review on June 11, 2003 to prevent the Agency from taking any further action. [5]                On June 4, 2004, Mosley J. granted the application. ... ontario Limitations Act, 2002 (as amended by the Justice Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, chapter 24, Schedule B)... 3.     ... (i)    a proceeding to recover money owing to the Crown in respect of, (i) fines, taxes and penalties, or (ii) interest that may be added to a tax or penalty under an Act;... ontario Loi de 2002 sur la prescription des actions (telle que modifiée par la Loi de 2002 modifiant des lois dans le domaine de la justice, L.O. 2002, chapitre 24, Annexe B) [...] 3.     ...

LÉTOURNEAU J.A.                         NADON J.A.   BETWEEN: VIATEUR MERCIER Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent             Hearing held at Québec, Quebec, on June 13, 2007. ...   [1]                The appellant was reassessed for the taxation years 2000, 2001 and 2002, using the net worth method. ... “Gilles Létourneau” J.A.       “I concur.             Richard C.J.”     ...

  [1]                During the 2002, 2003 and 2004 taxation years Ms. ... The Canada Revenue Agency assessed the appellant for the 2002, 2003 and 2004 taxation years on the basis that she had not incurred any amounts as expenses in connection with the carrying on of a business. ... Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235).   [5]                The Judge made the following findings of fact: 1.       ...

BETWEEN:                                                         HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN                                                                                                                                                        Appellant                                                                                  and                                                                 BRIAN ROY FINCH                                                                                                                                                    Respondent                                                         REASONS FOR JUDGMENT RICHARD C.J. [1]                 This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada, dated September 17, 2002, awarding costs to the respondent's counsel in the lump sum of $25,000: Finch v. ... Canada, 2002 FCA 194, [2002] F.C.J. No. 754 (QL).                    [2]                 Although the Tax Court judge gave the parties an opportunity to be heard on the issue of costs, he made his determination in a manner inconsistent with the directions of the Federal Court of Appeal. ... Canada, 2002 FCA 194, [2002] F.C.J. No. 754.     [7]                 Accordingly, the Federal Court of Appeal allowed the Minister's appeal on the award of costs and referred the matter back to the Tax Court judge for redetermination after the parties had an opportunity to be heard: [6] The appeal will be allowed and the matter will be referred back to the Tax Court Judge so that he may again dispose of the issue of costs in a manner consistent with these reasons and after giving the parties an opportunity to be heard. ...

On June 5, 2002, Derek Prue requested a decision of the Minister.   6.       On June 10, 2002, RCMP Customs & Excise faxed a copy of Derek Prue’s appeal to Customs Collections in Calgary, Alberta.   7.       ... Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235: correctness on questions of law, and palpable and overriding error on questions of fact, or mixed fact and law where there is no extricable question of law.   ...

Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2003 FCA 189 Date: 20030414 Docket: A-444-01 Neutral Citation: 2003 FCA 189 BETWEEN:                                           CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF THE BLIND                                                                                                                                                        Appellant                                                                              - and-                                           THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE                                                                                                                                                    Respondent                                                ASSESSMENT OF COSTS- REASONS FRANÇOIS PILON Assessment Officer         This is an appeal from the respondent's decision to revoke the registration of the appellant as a registered charity. The appeal was set down for hearing for December 18, 2002, however, the appellant filed a discontinuance on December 10, 2002. ... Halifax, Nova Scotia                                                                                                               April 14, 2003                                     François Pilon Assessment Officer                         FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD COURT FILE NO.:        A-444-01 STYLE OF CAUSE: Canadian Association for the Blind v. ...

Canada, 2002 SCC 46, which clarified the law concerning the role of reasonable expectation of profit in determining the source of a taxpayer's income. The question to be decided is whether the decision under appeal can be allowed to stand in the light of 2002 SCC 46 "> Stewart. [4]                 Mr. ... In these circumstances, the objective criteria prescribed in [1978] 1 S.C.R. 480 "> Moldowan remain relevant, although the existence of a reasonable expectation of profit from the activity is only one of the circumstances that must be examined when ascertaining whether the taxpayer has a commercial intent: 2002 SCC 46 "> Stewart at paras. 5 and 55.. [12]            According to 2002 SCC 46 "> Stewart (at para. 50), in order to determine if a source of income exists a court should first ask: "is the activity of the taxpayer undertaken in pursuit of profit, or is it a personal endeavour? ...

Facts [3]                In 2002 and 2003, Mr. Berg participated in a so-called charitable donation program where he received inflated tax receipts. ...   [5]                On November 19, 2002, Mr. Berg purchased 68 timeshare units with a fair market value (FMV) of $242,000.   ...   [6]                On December 6, 2002, Mr. Berg transferred the timeshare units to Cheder Chabad which, at all times material to this case, was a registered charity under the Act. ...