Search - 阿里拍卖 司法拍卖

More particularly, he stated (at para. 238) that the quoted statutory exclusion was “grounded in an underlying rationale that … focus[es] on competitiveness,” and that “in looking at both aspects of a foreign bank’s business [namely] the receipt of funds and use of funds, there should be emphasis on the receipt side as that is where one would expect to find the competition element.” Here, virtually all of GBL’s funds came from non-arm’s length parties [there being no discussion as to who the receipt of equity funding can be part of the conduct of a business] – and, turning to the use of its funds, the purchases of the short-term debt were impressed with their character of researching the best return for a non-arm’s length party, the distributor loans “were effectively handed over to GBL by Loblaw” (para. 243), the intercompany loans clearly were with non-arm’s length persons and “even the swap activity has a considerable element of conducting business with non-arm’s length person, as the swaps were subject to Loblaw derivative policies” (para. 247). ...

Graham J found that "the test in section 54.2 is intended to be a somewhat flexible test but … there is no reason not to consider the fair market value of the assets when applying the test.” From the FMV perspective, the transferred assets represented about 68% of the assets of the Tissue Division – and perhaps significantly less, given that some of the Tissue Division assets had not been valued. ...

Webb JA stated (at para.29): … [T]he four factors that are to be considered in an application for an extension of time are: whether Akanda had a continuing intention to pursue the application to set aside the default Judgments; whether the application to set aside the default Judgments has some merit; whether there is any prejudice to the Crown arising from the delay from April 9, 2017 to July 25, 2017; and whether there is a reasonable explanation for this delay. ... Webb JA further concluded (at para 40): … Since the Order only addressed the application for an extension of time, the second part of Akanda’s motion, in which it requested an order setting aside the default Judgments, remains outstanding and will need to be addressed by the Tax Court. ...

The audit also confirmed this, as all that which was reviewed on the audit was to the full satisfaction of the auditor, save for that one entry … [concerning] a small amount…. As for the adjusting entry, the Court does not see it as an extraordinary transaction, in terms either of nature or amount. … The entry accounted for around 2.4% of the total gross QST (before input tax refunds) generated annually on sales. ...

In characterizing the legislative intent of section 142, the Officer chose to follow the express language of section 142 over the broader purpose of the ETA to tax the consumption of goods or services in Canada …. ... It is also consistent with past jurisprudence of this Court which has preferred the strict language of the ETA over its broader purpose …. ...

The Applicant submitted (at para. 30) that as he “came forward with a voluntary disclosure in a timely fashion … it was unreasonable for the Delegate to not exercise discretion in waiving the penalties.” In determining that the Decision was reasonable and fell well within the range of acceptable outcomes, McVeigh J stated (at paras 38, 39 and 43): It was well within the Applicant’s control to file his past tax returns in a timely manner. … It is not unreasonable for the Delegate to consider the Applicant’s past late filings as a negative factor in assessing whether the Applicant will be given the relief from penalties.... ...

Therefore, the revocation notice was a factual element that was necessary in order to support the legal basis of the income inclusion …. ... Clearly, this was not a factual basis on which the reassessment was based when it was issued, or when the limitation period expired. … [T]he Minister’s position impermissibly avoids the limitation period for the 2009 taxation year. ...

In finding that no interest or penalty was payable by virtue of the set-off rule in s. 228(6), D’Auray J stated (at paras. 36-38, TaxInterpretations translation): When a person files a GST return … “at any time” and it attaches to that return a rebate claim, the person is deemed “at that time” (in this case, September 28, 2015) to have made its payment and the Minister is is deemed “at that time” to have paid … an amount as a rebate. ...

I agree … and find that the object, spirit and purpose of subsection 111(5) is to target manipulation of losses of a corporation by a new person or group of persons, through effective control over the corporation’s actions. ... In allowing the appeal, he concluded (at para 166): … [T]he circumstances referred to by the Respondent do not, in my view, indicate that Matco had effective control over the majority of the voting shares of the Appellant prior to the IPO and I find that the Avoidance Transactions do not amount to abuse of subsection 256(8) and paragraph 251(5)(b) of the Act. ...

In other words, “the intention of the parties was never to assign the options on shares … but rather to transfer the sums to the foundations” (para. 68). ... In this regard, he agreed (at para. 72) with the submission of Des Groseillers that “Section VI constitutes a complete code which by itself contains an exhaustive treatment of the rules for computing income on the issuance of securities of an employer,” and after quoting TA s. 54 (the equivalent of ITA s. 7(3)(a)) stated (at para. 73): Thus … TA article 422 cannot be engaged in order to fill in the rules for computing income provided in Section VI. ...