Search - 赤峰 二中 初中学区划分 2002
Results 1 - 5 of 5 for 赤峰 二中 初中学区划分 2002
FCTD (summary)
T & S First Choice Renovations Limited v. Canada Revenue Agency, 2012 DTC 5152 [at at 7377], 2012 FC 1146 -- summary under Subsection 220(3.1)
T & S First Choice Renovations Limited v. Canada Revenue Agency, 2012 DTC 5152 [at at 7377], 2012 FC 1146-- summary under Subsection 220(3.1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 220- Subsection 220(3.1) The taxpayer appealed the Minister's decision to deny relief of interest on corporate tax, payroll deductions, and GST accounts. ... The corporation had allowed penalties to accrue on its accounts since 2002. ...
FCTD (summary)
Rémillard v. Canada (National Revenue), 2020 FC 1061, aff'd 2022 CAF 63 -- summary under Section 8
Pamel J referred in numerous places in his reasons for judgment to the “open court” principle, including the statement by the Supreme Court in Sierra Club, 2002 SCC 41, that “ [t]he link between openness in judicial proceedings and freedom of expression has been firmly established by this Court.” ... This means that he controlled the timing of this introduction. … [H]e had the option of asking the Court to make an order to protect any information he wished to keep private and confidential. … [S]ection 318 of the FCR should not be considered in isolation. Faced with a problem such as the one faced by Rémillard, the Court is capable of finding a solution that balances, to the extent possible, the objectives of meaningful review of administrative decisions, procedural fairness, and the protection of any legitimate interest in confidentiality while at the same time maintaining the open court principle …. ...
FCTD (summary)
Anthony v. Canada (National Revenue), 2016 FC 955 -- summary under Separate Existence
Machining Consulting into his corporation in 2002, but the transfer was not completed. Following a 2005 audit, CRA offered to settle the issues arising from the 2001 and 2002 taxation years if the taxpayer signed a waiver of his appeal rights for both years respecting his business income and expenses. ... In finding that CRA’s decision should stand, and in rejecting a submission (at para. 23) that “it was unfair for the Minister’s delegate not to ‘match’ the expenses he incurred in paying the rental payments for the two machines against the income he earned by using the machines, and…although his corporation’s name was on the lease with CIT, the corporation was in fact inactive,” Bowell J stated (at paras. 24 to 26): [T]he matching principle is not a rule of law which dictates or requires that expenses must always be matched with profits; it is simply an accounting principle that a court may or may not consider depending upon the particular facts and circumstances of a case. … …The Applicant chose to collect revenue generated by the machines personally, rather than through his corporation, and he cannot rely upon an accounting principle to ignore the legal reality of the lease and argue that the cost of the lease payments should be attributed to him personally and deductible from his personal income for the 2001 taxation year. …... ...
FCTD (summary)
Rémillard v. Canada (National Revenue), 2020 FC 1061, aff'd 2022 CAF 63 -- summary under Subsection 318(1)
. … Just because the documents are not part of the evidentiary record does not mean that they are not part of the Court record and, it should be recalled, it is the documents in the Court record that are subject to the open court principle. Regarding the open court principle, he referred (at para. 27) to the observation in Sierra Club, 2002 SCC 41, at para. 36 that “[t]he link between openness in judicial proceedings and freedom of expression has been firmly established by this Court,” and stated (at paras. 30-31): Section 26 of the FCR is clear. The open court principle allows any person to inspect a court record and any annex "that is available to the public" …. ...
FCTD (summary)
Milgram Foundation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 1405 -- summary under Section 18.5
However, in a September 5, 2018 proposal letter, the Minister proposed to assess Milgram for its 1998 to 2002 taxation years (the “earlier years”) based on an estimate of Milgram’s investment income for those years, stating that this assessment came about due to “misrepresentation” attributable to “neglect, carelessness or wilful default.” ... Go J then stated (at paras. 114-115): According to the SCC [in Dow Chemical], if this Court decides to quash a decision on administrative law grounds, and the Minister issues a new decision that affects the amount of taxes owing, the assessment will be incorrect if it does not accurately reflect the new opinion. … [The 2021] notices of objection have not been adjudicated. ...