Search - 赤峰 二中 初中学区划分 2025
Results 11 - 20 of 31 for 赤峰 二中 初中学区划分 2025
Did you mean?赤峰 二中 初中学区划分 2005
FCA (summary)
Canada v. DAC Investment Holdings Inc., 2025 FCA 37 -- summary under Rule 109
., 2025 FCA 37-- summary under Rule 109 Summary Under Tax Topics- Other Legislation/Constitution- Federal- Federal Courts Rules- Rule 109 proposed intervention would impermissibly introduce a new issue The moving party (“QPG”) sought an order pursuant to Rule 109 of the Federal Courts Rules permitting it to intervene in this appeal by the Crown of the DAC decision, which found that there was no GAAR abuse in the taxpayer (DAC) avoiding the s. 123.3 refundable tax and accessing the s. 123.4 general rate reduction through continuing to the British Virgin Islands, thereby ceasing to be a Canadian-controlled private corporation (CCPC). ... Here, the parties had not put in issue the Minister’s designation of DAC as a CCPC in its notice of reassessment (presumably a designation pursuant to s. 89(1) – public corporation – (c)(ii)), whereas QPG wished to intervene on the issue of whether such a designation overrode the legislative criteria imposed by the Act for determining CCPC status. ... Before dismissing the motion to intervene, Stratas JA stated (at paras. 25-27): The issue raised by QPQ … seeks to reinvent the theory of the case. ...
TCC (summary)
IWK Health Centre v. The King, 2025 TCC 44 -- summary under Subsection 175(1)
The King, 2025 TCC 44-- summary under Subsection 175(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 175- Subsection 175(1)- Paragraph 175(1)(b) hospital employers could not apply s. 175(1) to the reimbursed health care expenses of their employees The appellants, which were Nova Scotia health authorities operating hospitals, through the administrator of a health care plan, reimbursed their employees for their costs including HST of acupuncture, massage therapy, naturopathy, or homeopathy services. ... After indicating (at para. 27) that the only “notable difference” between this case and Westcoast Energy was that in Westcoast Energy the “appellant sought to use the deeming effect of subsection 175(1) as a basis for claiming input tax credits rather than the public service body rebate,” Wong J went on to find that here s. 175(1) did not apply, stating (at paras. 30 – 31): Here, the Services are of a particularly personal and individual nature, designed to be consumed by the person purchasing the supply. … [I]t is difficult to reasonably conclude that the Services were used by the appellants’ employees in the course of their employment activities, as I would expect them to access these types of services on their personal time. … [T]he connection between the use of the Services and the employee’s employment activities is even more tenuous when the employee’s family member receives the supply. ...
FCA (summary)
Bank of America v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 9 -- summary under Subparagraph 141.02(19)(b)(ii)
Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 9-- summary under Subparagraph 141.02(19)(b)(ii) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 141.02- Subsection 141.02(19)- Paragraph 141.02(19)(b)- Subparagraph 141.02(19)(b)(ii) it was reasonable to not extend under s. 141.02(19)(b)(ii) where the taxpayer failed to show due diligence The Bank, which had decided to outsource all its Canadian tax department to EY, was told by the last departing tax employee that its relevant tax credit amounts had not been at a level sufficient to be a qualifying institution. ... She stated (at para. 11) that “this Court has already determined that it is reasonable for the Minister to have regard to the diligence of a taxpayer in circumstances such as this: Denso Manufacturing … 2021 FCA 236 ” and that “even if … the Minister applied the wrong test in denying its applications for late filing, [the Bank] was still required to provide a reasonable explanation for its delay under the Hennelly test, which it failed to do.” ...
TCC (summary)
Bell Telephone Company of Canada v. The King, 2023 TCC 45, aff'd 2025 FCA 27 -- summary under Specified Provincial Input Tax Credit
The King, 2023 TCC 45, aff'd 2025 FCA 27-- summary under Specified Provincial Input Tax Credit Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 236.01- Subsection 236.01(1)- Specified Provincial Input Tax Credit Bell Canada received single supplies of electricity from its Ontario electricity suppliers so that their full charges were subject to provincial ITC recapture The appellant (Bell Canada) was required as a result of ETA s. 236.01 and Part 6 of the New Harmonized Value-added Tax System Regulations, No. 2 (the “Recapture Regulations”) to recapture 100% of the input tax credits that it claimed in respect of the 8% tax that it paid under s. 165(2) on the consideration for the supplies to it in Ontario of electricity. ... As … noted in City of Calgary, such supplies are parts or components of the single overall supply of electricity. … To paraphrase [O.A. ... Regarding a submission that Bell Canada (at para. 131) that it “could have purchased the electricity from a retailer and the transmission and distribution services from a Local Distributor,” he stated (at para. 132) that the “Court must make its decision based upon the supplies actually made ….” ...
FCA (summary)
Madison Pacific Properties Inc. v. Canada, 2025 FCA 20 -- summary under Subsection 248(10)
Canada, 2025 FCA 20-- summary under Subsection 248(10) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(10) series of transactions included the subsequent loss utilization which motivated corporate restart transactions Under a “restart” plan, the appellant changed its name, spun out its existing mining assets so that it was a shell with only tax losses, and B.C. real estate companies of two individuals (Grippo and Heung) transferred various real estate assets, including jointly owned properties, to the appellant for consideration that included shares of the appellant. ... [Thus] … there was an avoidance transaction since the series of transactions would, but for the GAAR, result in a tax benefit – a reductio ...
FCA (summary)
Shull v. Canada, 2025 FCA 25 -- summary under Subsection 180(3)
Canada, 2025 FCA 25-- summary under Subsection 180(3) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 180- Subsection 180(3) a breach of procedural fairness by the Tax Court did not require allowing the taxpayer’s appeal The taxpayer, who was cognitively disabled from a brain injury and had limited ability to represent himself, used an agent to dispute assessments that treated (consistently with judgments on GST appeals by him for much of the same period) amounts as having been received by him qua employee, so that they were employment income for ITA purposes. ... However, she stated (at para. 32): A finding of a breach of procedural fairness renders a decision liable to be overturned …. However, where the result is inevitable, a court may exercise its discretion to not grant a remedy for the breach …. ...
FCA (summary)
Bell Canada v. Canada (the King), 2025 FCA 27 -- summary under Supply
Canada (the King), 2025 FCA 27-- summary under Supply Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 123- Subsection 123(1)- Supply Ontario electricity suppliers made single supplies of electricity notwithstanding separate regulatory and delivery charges Bell Canada was required as a result of ETA s. 236.01 and the related regulation to recapture 100% of the input tax credits that it claimed in respect of the 8% Ontario HST that it paid on the consideration for the supplies to it in Ontario of electricity. ... In affirming this finding, Boivin JA distinguished Kevin Davis Dentistry, which gave effect to the expressed Parliamentary intent to “provide for different tax treatment of supplies of orthodontic appliances and orthodontic service” (para. 25) whereas, here, the Ontario regulations did “not amount to as clear an indicator of Parliament’s intent as the GST Act did in Kevin Davis Dentistry ” and “the intended tax treatment of what would constitute separate supplies in the present circumstances is not outlined in any statute as it was in the GST Act in Kevin Davis Dentistry ” (para. 28). ...
FCA (summary)
Northbridge Commercial Insurance Corporation v. Canada (the King), 2025 FCA 83 -- summary under Direct Input
Canada (the King), 2025 FCA 83-- summary under Direct Input Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 141.02- Subsection 141.02(1)- Direct Input whether head office rent was a direct input or non-attributable input was under dispute/ classification of inputs in hands of Tax Court Northbridge issued around 5,000 insurance policies each year to trucking companies operating in Canada and the US and claimed ITCs for 1/3 of the GST/HST paid by it on its general head office and overhead costs on the basis that a portion of its insurance supplies were zero-rated under s. ... There are four types of inputs for the purposes of section 141.02 — direct inputs, excluded inputs, exclusive inputs and non-attributable inputs — informing the appropriate allocation method that is to be used by a financial institution in calculating its ITCs. ...
Decision summary
3308367 Canada Inc. v. ARQ, 2025 QCCQ 1330 -- summary under Subsection 152(1)
ARQ, 2025 QCCQ 1330-- summary under Subsection 152(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 152- Subsection 152(1) a CBCA corporation can be assessed within 2 years of its dissolution – or thereafter, if revived by the ARQ or CRA The ARQ assessed the taxpayer within two years of the taxpayer’s dissolution pursuant to s. 210(3) of the CBCA. ...
FCA (summary)
Bell Canada v. Canada (the King), 2025 FCA 27 -- summary under Specified Provincial Input Tax Credit
Canada (the King), 2025 FCA 27-- summary under Specified Provincial Input Tax Credit Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 236.01- Subsection 236.01(1)- Specified Provincial Input Tax Credit Ontario electricity suppliers made single supplies of electricity notwithstanding separate regulatory and delivery charges, so that there were full RITCs Bell Canada was required as a result of ETA s. 236.01 and the related regulation to recapture 100% of the input tax credits that it claimed in respect of the 8% Ontario HST that it paid on the consideration for the supplies to it in Ontario of electricity. ... In affirming this finding, Boivin JA distinguished Kevin Davis Dentistry, which gave effect to the expressed Parliamentary intent to “provide for different tax treatment of supplies of orthodontic appliances and orthodontic service” (para. 25) whereas, here, the Ontario regulations did “not amount to as clear an indicator of Parliament’s intent as the GST Act did in Kevin Davis Dentistry ” (para. 28). ...