Search - 阿里拍卖 司法拍卖

Canada, 2022 FCA 126-- summary under Consistency Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Consistency presumption of consistent expression After finding that an initial director had not satisfied the requirement under the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) that a replacement director be appointed by virtue of an OBCA provision that deemed a de facto director to be a director, Gleason JA went on to state (at para. 16): This textual interpretation is also supported by the interpretive presumption of consistent expression, which would require, unless the context dictates otherwise, that the terms “elected” and “appointed” be given a meaning in subsection 119(2) that is consistent with other provisions in the OBCA where these terms are used …. ...

Canada, 2023 FCA 91-- summary under Double Taxation/Deduction (Presumption Against) Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Double Taxation/Deduction (Presumption Against) no intention to create 2 capital losses out of 1 Regarding s. 39(2) deeming an FX capital loss to be from the disposition of foreign currency, Webb JA stated (at para. 34): It could not have been intended that a taxpayer would have been entitled to two deductions for an allowable capital loss on the disposition of a particular property – one related to the disposition of the property actually disposed of and the other related to the deemed capital loss from the disposition of foreign currency. ...

. … In practical terms, normally only a fundamental misreading or misapplication of subsection 23(2), irrationality, or bad faith on the part of the Minister will lead to relief. ...

The King, 2024 TCC 19 (Informal Procedure)-- summary under Paragraph (e) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 122.6- Eligible Individual- Paragraph (e) refugee claimants were ineligible Bocock J held that he was bound by the decision in Almadhoun that as a matter of statutory interpretation of s. 122.6 – eligible individual- s. ...

The King, 2024 TCC 125-- summary under Paragraph 141.02(31)(f) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 141.02- Subsection 141.02(31)- Paragraph 141.02(31)(f) s. 141.02(31)(f) is merely confirmatory of normal taxpayer onus Before going on to find that the Minister’s pre-approval of an ITC calculation methodology under s. 141.02(20) did not preclude subsequent reassessments to deny the zero-rated status of supplies which had been assumed under such methodology, Smith J stated (at para. 45): I find that paragraph 141.02(31)(f) merely confirms that a financial institution has the onus of establishing that the “particular methods (…) were used consistently” during the fiscal year at issue. ...

Also in March 2005, 9149 redeemed the Class A common shares for their PUC and ACB of $347,848 (so that no deemed divided or capital gain resulted) and redeemed approximately ¾ of the Class B preferred shares, giving rise to a deemed dividend and capital loss of $196,506 to the taxpayers. ... At the end of 2008, 9149 redeemed the (¼) balance of the Class B preferred shares for $69,000, giving rise to a deemed dividend and capital loss to the taxpayers of $69,000 and $73,112. ...

After noting that the trial Judge, in reliance on Aridi, had found that a misrepresentation had to be that of the taxpayer (the Estate) rather than of its accountants, Webb JA noted (at para. 44) that the words of s. 152(4)(a)(i) "could mean that the person filing the return must be the one who was negligent, careless or wilfully in default," but found (at para. 46) that it was not necessary to resolve this point as there was a sufficient basis for Campbell J's finding that the failure to report the recapture in the original return was a misrepresentation attributable to the Estate's neglect: any detailed review of the terminal return by the executor would have caused him to query the accountants as to why the Victoria Park property did not appear on the disposition Schedule – which, in turn, likely would have resulted in their identification of the recapture-reporting error (para. 50). ... See summary under General Concepts – Onus. ...

. … IPL2 stands for the proposition that...gross income from a source in a particular location must be reduced by any deduction that may reasonably be regarded as applicable to that source. ... It seems unlikely that the tax sparing provision was intended…to operate to shelter not only Brazilian interest income from Canadian tax, but income from other sources unrelated to Brazil as well. … After noting (at paras. 69-70) that: Article 23B of the 1977 OECD Model....uses the phrase “that part of the income tax… which is attributable…to the income…which may be taxed in that other state.” ...

. … What it supplies is the agreement to use the Annual Resort Fees to fund its operations. … This…is the supply of something other than property. ...

. … [T]here was no evidence…that the bonuses were…intended…to reasonably compensate the Appellant for her duties of employment. … [T]he Appellant received remuneration through her bi-weekly pay that was roughly equivalent to Mike’s remuneration, except for 2008 when the Appellant’s regular pay exceeded Mike’s. ...