Search - 阿里拍卖 司法拍卖

In finding that this arrangement did not constitute a joint venture for s. 273 purposes, Teskey J first quoted (at para. 52) from an extended extract from Central Mortgage & Housing Corporation v. Graham, 43 D.L.R. (3d) 686 (N.S.S.C.) including the following passage from Williston on Contracts: [T]he decisions are in substantial agreement that the following factors must be present: (a) A contribution by the parties of money, property, effort, knowledge, skill or other asset to a common undertaking; (b) A joint property interest in the subject matter of the venture; (c) A right of mutual control or management of the enterprise; (d) Expectation of profit, or the presence of “adventure”, as it is sometimes called; (e) A right to participate in the profits; (f) Most usually, limitation of the objective to a single undertaking or ad hoc enterprise. … Teskey J then stated (at para. 55): I do not find there existed the right to participate in profits nor an expectation of profit, from the infrastructure for either party. ...

The appellant treated their $50,000 annual fee as being eligible for the small supplier exemption on the basis that the appellant’s wife was entitled to ½ in light of her responsibility for providing interior-decorating services. ... Gupta, his wife and himself is admissible because of the patent ambiguity in the contract” – and concluded (at para. 57) that “the Agreement does not accurately reflect their true intent.” ...

Johnson & Johnson, 94 DTC 6125. ...

The Queen, 2009 DTC 179, 2008 TCC 684-- summary under Paragraph 18(1)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 18- Subsection 18(1)- Paragraph 18(1)(a) A fine which the taxpayer paid under the Occupational Health & Safety Act (Ontario) for the offence of failing "to provide information, instruction and supervision to a worker" following a death of a worker was found not to come within the "egregious or repulsive" conduct obiter dictum of the Supreme Court of Canada. ...

The Queen, 2010 DTC 1399 [at at 4585], 2010 TCC 576, aff'd 2012 DTC 5055 [at 6842], 2011 FCA 321, aff'd 2013 DTC 5144 [at 6275], 2013 SCC 48-- summary under Redundancy/reading in words Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Redundancy/reading in words The taxpayer unsuccessfully argued (ca. para. 65) that s. 87(2) was intended to constitute a complete code as to the consequences of an amalgamation, so that it would be rendered redundant if an amalgamation could be governed by general Black & Decker ([1975] 1 S.C.R. 411) principles. ...

Salomon & Co., [1897] A.C. 22 (HL)): [A]n Ontario corporation is a legal entity that has a legal personality separate and apart from its directors, officers and shareholders. ...

Miller, J found that the Tax Court did not have the jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a purported Alberta trust which had been assessed by CRA for Ontario income tax (on the basis of being resident in Ontario) as well as for Ontario gross negligence penalties, stating (at para. 14): [I]t is also clear that the Tax Court of Canada does not have jurisdiction to decide if a provincial penalty is properly imposed: Andrew Paving & Engineering Ltd v Minister of National Revenue, [1984] C.T.C. 2164 (TCC) at paragraph 8 and Raboud v Canada, 2009 TCC 99 at paragraph 12. ...

In rejecting the taxpayer’s arguments inter alia that such property was capital property, which precluded the treatment of the receipts as being on income account (even under s. 12(l)(g)), Taylor TCJ held that as the amount of the royalty was “dependent upon the use of or production from ‘ the business as a going concern’ (the property),” and that the property sold had a direct relationship with the source of payment, the payments fell squarely within s. 12(l)(g). ...

…[I]t is also clear that the Tax Court of Canada does not have jurisdiction to decide if a provincial penalty is properly imposed: Andrew Paving & Engineering Ltd v Minister of National Revenue, [1984] C.T.C. 2164 (TCC) at paragraph 8 and Raboud v Canada, 2009 TCC 99 at paragraph 12. ...

The Queen, 2016 TCC 52 (Informal Procedure)-- summary under Benefits-Conferring Legislation Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Benefits-Conferring Legislation interpretation to favour conferral of intended benefits In connection with finding that he addition of an accommodation co-purchaser (for financing purposes) of a new condo did not have the effect of denying the new housing HST rebate, Hershfield J stated (at paras. 50-51): In Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. ...