Search - 阿里拍卖 司法拍卖

. … [A] factor that does not include a legally enforceable right and ability to effect a change to the board of directors or its powers, or to exercise influence over the shareholder or shareholders who have that right and ability, ought not to be considered as having the potential to establish de facto control. ...

As reiterated… in Turner … 2012 FCA 159 at para [45]…[w]hen the reviewing court is not in a position to determine if the decision on that point or argument falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and the law, the decision will usually be found to be unreasonable, unless the reviewing court can itself reasonably find that the outcome of the proceedings would not have changed even if the point or argument has been dealt with by the tribunal one way or the other. ...

. … …[T]he condition under which deductibility is disallowed in respect of payments to non-residents, is plainly different from that when made to a resident. ...

. … There is no evidence that the Assessee has any right to use the premises or any fixed place at its disposal. ...

This is because the making of exempt supplies is excluded from the definition of “commercial activities” … Also, I find that the legal fees incurred by the Appellant in the course of litigation commenced in January 2011 have not been shown to have been related to or connected with any commercial activity carried on by the Appellant. ...

…[T]echnological obstacles and uncertainties … could readily change from one year to the next. ...

(the “Canadian Resort Point Purchasers” and “American Resort Point Purchasers,” respectively – who also thereupon became member of the Appellant, along with the Canadian and U.S. ...

. … [I]t follows from the case-law...that if the supply price is lower than the cost price, the deduction cannot be limited in proportion to the difference between the supply price and the cost price, even if the supply price is considerably lower than the cost price, unless it is purely symbolic…. ...

. … …The Applicant chose to collect revenue generated by the machines personally, rather than through his corporation, and he cannot rely upon an accounting principle to ignore the legal reality of the lease and argue that the cost of the lease payments should be attributed to him personally and deductible from his personal income for the 2001 taxation year. …... ...

. … [T]he Appellant, when selling its limited partnership interests in Atria LP and CEC LP to the subsidiaries of AIMCo, clearly took into account the transactions… that resulted in the packaging of the real property into limited partnerships and the bumping of the adjusted cost base with respect to such limited partnerships. ...