Search - 阿里拍卖 司法拍卖

In finding that such payment was not taxable, Sommerfeldt J indicated that although it could easily be considered to be a benefit that arose out of her previous employment, the principle in Tsiaprailis applied to the effect that (para. 121): where, in addition to the general provision in paragraph 6(1)(a), there is “a specific [statutory provision] containing detailed conditions for the inclusion of an amount in income that would not otherwise be income” … the general provision cannot be used “to fill in all the gaps left by” the specific provision [viz. s. 6(4)]. ...

In rejecting a Crown submission that the issuance of the Class B shares was a sham, Jorré J stated (at paras 100 and 101): …I do not see how there can be an element of deceit in this case where the ephemeral nature of the Class B shares and the resulting inability of Class B shareholders to enjoy any of the attributes of owing the shares was, so to speak in plain view, in the arrangement agreement and the plan of arrangement filed with the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta …. ...

. … At the most, the proxy links them as Class B shareholders to assist in implementing the plan of arrangement; it does not give them the ability to change the direction of Veracel and it does not give them control of Veracel. ...

In this regard, he stated (at paras. 54-55): l’École polytechnique … 2004 FCA 127, confirms that the reasonable diligence defence can be used against an administrative penalty established under the scheme of section 280 of the ETA [stating]: [D]ue diligence excuses either a reasonable error of fact, or the taking of reasonable precautions to comply with the Act. ...

Graham J then stated (at para. 26, obiter): [I]f the reassessment in question [instead] had been made after the normal reassessment period … it would be inappropriate for me to attribute knowledge of that revocation to Mr. ...

. … I do not see any practical difference between a law being given retroactive effect and a fact deemed by law to exist retroactively being given retroactive effect. ...

The Queen, 2018 TCC 3, aff'd on s. 18(1)(a) grounds 2019 FCA 36-- summary under Income-Producing Purpose Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 18- Subsection 18(1)- Paragraph 18(1)(a)- Income-Producing Purpose purpose of payment was to extricate from a regional economic-development obligation rather than to enhance business reputation The corporate taxpayer agreed with the City of Chandler that it would no longer use any loan repayment proceeds received by it from a City-owned corporation- that had failed in an costly attempt to restart a paper mill close to the City – to invest in a prospective replacement economic-development LP to be sponsored by the City, but would instead make a “gift” of the loan repayment proceeds (which ended up totalling $9.3 million) to the City, for which it received charitable receipts. ...

The taxpayer in fact “engaged in no acts of management … let alone any actions specific to a director” (para. 40). ...

A previous case had found that generally “dismissal under section 16.2 of the TCC Act carries the same effect as a judgment of dismissal by the Court” – and the action which thus had constructively been decided against them was one in which they could have, but failed to, raised their statute-barring arguments. ...

The Queen, 2009 TCC 588 that: None of [the cited cases], however, support the appellant’s proposition that adjustments to the expenses of a previous fiscal period, and concomitant changes to the income of the employee for a previous year, may be made on a retroactive basis …. ...