Search - 阿里拍卖 司法拍卖

. … When assessing a request for the re-apportionment of an SBC, the Minister should also have regard to whether denial of the request might possibly result in the Minister’s inability to collect outstanding tax arrears from a taxpayer. … [T]he decision [is] unreasonable because it is not apparent or transparent that Forbes’ financial hardship was a factor in the decision-making process. ...

After quoting with approval the position in Memorandum 3.3 as to the meaning of "delivery" and "made available" (signifying constructive delivery) and quoting with approval the statement in Marshall and Van Allen v Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, [1956] OR 930 (Ont CA) that “Delivery is accomplished by the purchaser obtaining the actual physical possession of the goods or, if certain conditions are present, there may be a symbolical delivery which divests the seller's possession,” she stated (at paras. 99, 104): … [T]he focus in section 142 is on “delivered”. Generally, that equates to delivery of a full voluntary transfer of possession of the property to the buyer immediately upon physical possession by the buyer without restriction. … Clearly, Customers were given full possession of the Jewellery at the time these were hand delivered, before or after airport security. ...

. … It was not for the ARQ to find the error. The burden was on the taxpayer to submit accurate tax returns. It was the return of the taxpayer according to which the properties in question were included in Class 12 which, if so established, was the source of the error of fact by the ARQ. … It would be contrary to the interests of justice for the ARQ to be precluded from a defence based on the facts, which were erroneously presented by the plaintiff, even though the file is at the stage of an appeal from the notice of assessment. ...

. … When making the subsection 297(2.1) assessment for the overpayment of the rebate, the Minister must consider subsection 296(2.1) since she is assessing an amount that became payable by the person under Part IX of the Act. … Since the Appellant was assessed, pursuant to subsection 297(2.1), an amount payable of $24,000 under section 264, the Minister should have considered subsection 296(2.1) when issuing the assessment in respect of the New Housing Rebate. ...

Before dismissing the taxpayer’s appeal, Lafrenière JCQ rejected these submissions, stating (at para. 17, TaxInterpretations translation): [T]he exception provided in Articles 93.1 to 93.3 … applies without regard to whether the disposition is voluntary or involuntary, and also applies independently of whether or not there was a wish to dispose of the underlying land. He also quoted (at para. 17) with approval similar findings in 9136-6872 Québec: [16] In my opinion, it would be incorrect to argue that paragraph [13(21)](b) does not apply if the land is never sold or if an appellant has no intention of selling it, because no taxpayer knows at what particular time he or she will dispose of land. … [18] Paragraph 13(21.1)(b) merely provides that the land must not be disposed of in the same taxation year as the building. ...

In confirming the confirmation below of the ARQ’s denial of recognition of his share of SEC losses, the Court stated (at paras. 4-5, 7, TaxInterpretations translation): The judge of first instance … highlighted that the quantity and quality of the transactions and agreements presented in evidence were negligible in relation the ongoing activities of a company whose joint fund amounted to $5,273,272. … The judge of first instance also found that the documents produced in evidence that the appellant did not support his position that he had acted as agent or mandatary of the limited partnership. ...

In affirming this finding, the Full Court stated (at paras. 64-65): What bound the respondents to dispose of their shares and interests in Talison Lithium was not the entry into a contract of sale overseas but the convening of the scheme meeting, the approval at that meeting of the scheme of arrangement, the approval of that scheme by the Court, and the lodging of the order of the Court with the Australian Securities and Investment Commission …. ... That arrangement took place in Australia, and accordingly, because the scheme was the “proximate” origin of the profits earned, and because of the other connections with Australia summarised by the primary judge … including the location of the mine in Western Australia, those profits had a source in Australia. ...

Colitto’s liability arose pursuant to section 227.1 … in his 2011 taxation year and was not in respect of his 2008 taxation year” (para. 48) – so that the condition in s. 160(1)(e)(ii) quoted above was not satisfied. ...

. … We agree with the government that Article 26A merely facilitates collection of an already existing debt. … In also rejecting Retfalvi’s submission that Art. 26A required House-originated implementing legislation, and before dismissing his appeal, she stated (at p. 17): Article 26A relies on each country’s existing tax laws and procedures for assessment and collection. ...

. … The Delegate’s characterization of the Applicant as “a repeat over-contributor to his TFSA account” is unjustified, especially when one considers that the CRA granted his request for a waiver of the tax imposed on the 2014 excess contribution. … [T]he Delegate’s decision is unreasonable because it did not fully assess the extent to which the excess contributions resulted from the mistakes of persons other than the Applicant. ...