Search - 阿里拍卖 司法拍卖

The articles of Melru left the amount of dividends to be declared on the Class F and G shares largely in the discretion of the director, except that: dividends on the Class G shares could not exceed a return of prime + 1% on their redemption price; and after dividends of $0.01 per share were paid on the Class F share, dividends of $0.01 per share were required to be declared on the common shares before further dividends on the Class F shares could be declared. ...

On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Minister raised several new arguments, including that: the transactions were abusive of ss. 3, 4, 9 and 111, an underlying policy of which is that business loss claims should reflect actual losses; the taxpayer's purported losses were not business losses, given that the shares were not acquired as inventory or as part of and adventure or concern in the nature of trade (see "Rollover and other non-trading transactions "); and to the extent that the taxpayer had any losses, they were capital in nature. ...

EBI exercised the same daily control of the individuals' activities after the change as before (and subsequently, after the new arrangements were terminated) through detailed daily reporting, detailed monitoring by its foremen and strict controls on how its trucks (which were owned by EBI) were utilized and parked – as well as the individual corporations themselves being administered by EBI's accountants for a fixed fee and having the same address as EBI. ...

. … If the payments were remuneration payable to Ms. Kirsten for her services, subsection 56(2) would not require the payments to be taxed in the hands of Mr. ...

Finally, although both the parties might "... have agreed that Ticketnet was liable to pay $2 million to Air Canada for services rendered, a liability that terminated on the good faith non-acceptance of the software... this is not what the contract provide[d]". ...

" and that this condition was satisfied here given that the taxpayer's exercised control over Holiday 80. ...

Before going on to find that s, 186(2) also applied so as to provide input tax credits for GST on the fees incurred by the appellant in connection with this listing, C Miller J found that s. 186(1) applied to deem the appellant to incur the fees for use in its commercial activities, stating (at paras. 16-17): The facts are quite clear – the listing services were acquired so that Stantec could complete its deal to own all the shares of the company resulting from the merger of Keith Companies and Stantec California. ...

See summary under s. 163.2(1) – culpable conduct. ...

Furthermore, such expert erred in treating retail sales by Infosource as a relevant comparable for valuing the licences here as they essentially had been acquired on a wholesale basis – so that the modest price paid to Infosource represented the licences' fair market value. ...

. … The second part of the test… determined by an objective evaluation of the specific facts and circumstances of each case in relation to appropriate jurisprudence, having regard to whether the taxpayer acted in accordance with reasonably acceptable principles of commerce and business practices. ...