Search - 赤峰 二中 初中学区划分 2002

Justice Beaubier of the Tax Court of Canada dated March 31, 2006 (2006 TCC 207), which dismissed the appellant’s appeal from a determination by the Minister of National Revenue that the appellant had employed the intervenor, Judith Wilson, in insurable employment from January 1, 2002 to November 10, 2002. [2]                After reviewing the evidence in the light of this Court’s decision in Wiebe Door Services Ltd v. ... I would award no costs to the intervener.   “M. Nadon” J.A.   “I agree.             ... DATED:                                                                                  November 10, 2008     APPEARANCES:   Andrzej Stawicki THE APPELLANT ON HIS BEHALF   John Gibb-Carsley Linda Bell   FOR THE RESPONDENT   Judith Wilson THE INTERVENER   SOLICITORS OF RECORD:       John H. ...

This decision proved fatal because the trial judge relied on the financial statements that were adduced in evidence to decide the outcome of the appeal (Reasons, para. 25) : I do not believe that the accountant Lévesque made a mistake in preparing the bar’s financial statements for the year 2002. ... Simard’s comments to the effect that the 2002 financial statements were not accurate and did not reflect reality, the accountant Lévesque did not have the presentation of the bar’s operating results for the years 2002 and 2003 changed. I conclude that that the bar’s financial statements for the years 2002 and 2003 did indeed reflect the existing relationship between Mr. ...

MALONE J.A.                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ... A-25-03 BETWEEN:                                                                                                                                               PETER RONALD FRENCH                                                                                                                                                          Appellant                                                                                  and                                                         HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN                                                                                                                                                      Respondent                                                                                                                                                           A-22-03 BETWEEN:                                                                                                                                                             BARRY ACE                                                                                                                                                          Appellant                                                                                  and                                                         HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN                                                                                                                                                      Respondent                                                                                                                                                           A-23-03 BETWEEN:                                                                                                                                                  MARGARET LANIGAN                                                                                                                                                          Appellant                                                                                  and                                                         HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN                                                                                                                                                      Respondent                                                                                                                                                           A-24-03 BETWEEN:                                                                                                                                                 CAROL STACEY-DIABO                                                                                                                                                          Appellant                                                                                  and                                                         HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN                                                                                                                                                      Respondent                                                         REASONS FOR JUDGMENT                                               (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario,                                                                 on November 18, 2003) [1]                 These are four appeals of judgments of the Tax Court of Canada dated December 12, 2002, dealing with a common set of issues. ... The Queen), [2002] T.C.J. No. 667 (QL), 2003 D.T.C. 200, [2003] 2 C.T.C. 2275 (T.C.C.). ...

Gendron, it was set at $1,043,889. [10]            The second relevant transaction occurred four days later on September 30, 2002. ... Gendron’s shares, those purchased on September 26, 2002, and those given to her on September 30, 2002, were then sold to BW Technologies on October 7, 2002. [12]            At the end of the day, in her return of income for taxation year 2002, Ms.  ... B.                  The shares received by Ms. Gendron as gifts and sold to BW Technologies [36]            On September 30, 2002, 4 days after purchasing the shares, Ms.  ...

Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235 at paragraph 36). Mr. Zouaimia did not demonstrate that there was any such error ... MAINVILLE J.A.   DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:                          TRUDEL J.A.       ... Kirvan Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT         ...

See 2002 SCC 33 "> e.g. Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 [" Housen "] at para. 36. [28]            The TCC admitted that its approach to considering whether the statutory purpose test was met departed from the prior jurisprudence. ... The Queen, 2002 DTC 1749 (T.C.C.). In that case, the TCC considered whether interest amounts in relation to a limited recourse mortgage were contingent liabilities. ... The court below had to answer this question correctly. 2002 SCC 33 "> Housen at para. 8. [45]            Unfortunately, it is not entirely clear from the decision below which transaction the TCC considered the relevant one in its paragraph 69(1)(a) analysis. ...

  [11]            Starting January 2002, the member received a combination of monthly pension and surplus payments of $2,941. By December 31, 2002, the member had received total surplus payments of $105,300. ... Due to two previous unsuccessful back surgeries, a growing dependence on pain medications, and poor prospects for income from the business in 2002 I decided to retire and to commence collecting my pension.   ...

  [2]                In reassessing the appellant for the taxation years at issue, the Minister disallowed business losses in the amount of $539,419 for 2001 and $559,338 for 2002. ...   [3]                The main issue before the Tax Court was whether the appellant’s losses in taxation years 2001 and 2002, following the disposal of stock options in BCE Emergis (“Emergis”), were on account of capital or income. ... The Judge further concluded, at paragraph 174, that the buying and selling of shares by the appellant during taxation years 2001 and 2002 did “… not constitute a business as defined in sub-section 248(1) of the Act”. ...

BETWEEN:                                             THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA                                                                                                                                                        Applicant                                                                                  and                                                                  JACQUES CARLE                                                                                                                                                    Respondent                                    Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on September 17, 2003.                                 ... BETWEEN:                                             THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA                                                                                                                                                        Applicant                                                                                  and                                                                  JACQUES CARLE                                                                                                                                                    Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT DÉCARY J.A. [1]                 By order made on September 24, 2002, this Court ordered that this case (Carle, A-315-02) be heard together with the cases of Casaubon (A-314-02), Lampron (A-316-02), Trahan (A-317-02), Lapointe (A-318-02), Bellemare (A-319-02), Lévesque (A-320-02) and Gélinas (A-321-02). ... Carle appealed the decisions made by the Commission on April 20, 1998, to the Board of Referees. [17]            On May 13, 1998, the Commission imposed a penalty of $11,564 on the employer. [18]            On June 5, 2001, the Board of Referees dismissed the appeal. [19]            On April 10, 2002, the Umpire allowed Mr. ...

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:                                                     BLAIS J.A.         ... BETWEEN: VASUNDARA RAGHAVAN Appellant and   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLAIS J.A. [1]                At issue in this case is whether the appellant, Vasundara Raghavan, can deduct certain business expenses in excess of revenue reported in the 2001, 2002 and 2003 taxation years based on whether the appellant undertook a bona fide business venture during those years, or, as the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen, claims, whether she simply undertook to manufacture tax deductions for those years ... The respondent suggests that the appellant was not engaged in a bona fide business and is simply attempting to manufacture tax deductions. [6]                At trial, Justice Woods concluded that the website consulting business was not a bona fide commercial activity and dismissed the appeals for 2001 and 2002 taxation years. ...