Search - 阿里拍卖 司法拍卖

Furthermore, the secretary of her husband’s accountant prepared a “Form 1 – Initial Return/Notice of Change” stating that the taxpayer’s directorship started on September 4, 2003 and ceased on December 12, 2003, although the accountant’s recollection of it having been sent to the Ontario Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, was not reflected in the Ministry’s records. ...

However, Southcott J accepted the taxpayers’ submissions in this regard by concluding (at para. 111) that “s 231.1 … does not authorize issuance of a demand compelling the recipient to provide, through written answers to questions, substantive information relevant to a taxpayer’s tax position” as contrasted to “authoriz[ing] compulsion of only pre-existing documentation” (para. 79). ...

., Branigan, 2004 FC 245)] …. Southcott J found however that the somewhat detailed affidavit evidence of a CRA manager was sufficient to meet the burden on the Minister to establish service of the s. 231.2(1) requirements, even though the requirements of s. 244(5) had not been met. ...

. … It is therefore necessary to consider, on a document-by-document basis, whether each Sample Document is subject to legal professional privilege. ...

Webb JA found that the taxpayer was estopped from now arguing that the amounts that she had treated as dividends in fact were not dividends (so that s. 160 did not apply to their payment)- because the appropriate procedures for the declaration and payment of the amounts as dividends were not followed and because s. 38(3) of the OBCA prohibited the payment of a dividend by an insolvent corporation – on the basis of the application of the principle (based on Wolofsky, 2001 FCA 119) that: [A] taxpayer who has benefited from having an amount included in his or her income as a dividend in a particular taxation year (and who has not objected to the assessment of tax based on having received this dividend) is estopped from claiming in any subsequent appeal related to the application of section 160 of the Act, that the previous filing position was wrong. ...

Webb JA found that the taxpayer was estopped from now arguing that the amounts that she had treated as dividends in fact were not dividends (so that s. 160 did not apply to their payment)- because the appropriate procedures for the declaration and payment of the amounts as dividends were not followed and because s. 38(3) of the OBCA prohibited the payment of a dividend by an insolvent corporation – on the basis of the application of the principle that: [A] taxpayer who has benefited from having an amount included in his or her income as a dividend in a particular taxation year (and who has not objected to the assessment of tax based on having received this dividend) is estopped from claiming in any subsequent appeal related to the application of section 160 of the Act, that the previous filing position was wrong. ...

Since section 18.5 of the Federal Courts Act only excludes the Federal Court from reviewing a decision when another Act expressly provides a right of appeal, this determination would lead to the finding that section 18.5 … is not a bar to the Federal Court judicially reviewing this decision of the Minister. ...

Agence du revenu du Québec, 2022 QCCQ 1175-- summary under Paragraph (a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 127- Subsection 127(9)- Contract Payment- Paragraph (a) expenditures under an agreement to develop software for a 3rd party pursuant to its specifications were not associated with contract payments The taxpayer (“CS Canada”), which carried on a business of developing software for use in the aeronautics industry, entered into a “long term purchase agreement” with a third party (“Pratt & Whitney” or “P&W”) for the sale to it of control system software. ...

Spiro J stated (at para. 34): Having applied the criteria … in Moldowan, I find that each factor (other than time spent), weighs heavily in favour of the conclusion that the Appellant did not carry on his farm business with a reasonable expectation of profit. ...

Likewise there should not be liability for the three paragraph 162(7)(a) failure to file penalties, as the defence of due diligence has been established – that is, the appellant reasonably believed in a mistaken set of facts that if true would have made his act or omission to act innocent. ...