Search - 阿里拍卖 司法拍卖

And went on to provide: However, you cannot deduct a loss or outgoing under this section to the extent that: it is a loss or outgoing of capital, or of a capital nature; … The Court dismissed the appeal, finding (at paras 39, 42 and 48): The activities conducted by the taxpayer pursuant to the Distribution Scheme were conducted by him in implementing and administering the Distribution Scheme. Such activities lacked the character of activities conducted as a business. … … [T]he taxpayer, in administering the Fund, was not turning his talent to account for money but was administering a court-approved scheme for the distribution of a settlement sum agreed upon by parties to a class action. ...

Kendal and the CRA to gather the evidence, draft the final Information, and essentially, do charge approval. … … Mr. Kendal and therefore his employer the CRA “caused everything to be done which could be done wrongfully to set the law in motion” against the Samaroos …. ... Kendal … wrote the Prosecution Report as an advocate not an investigator. ...

Before reversing the decision below to confirm these reassessments, the Court of Appeal stated (at paras. 13, 23, TaxInterpretations translation): The appellant was not required to make out a prima facie case that the 7.89% rate was unreasonable but, rather, that the assumption, on which the respondent relied in assessing it, that the 10% interest rate deducted from its income for the taxation years in issue was not "reasonable in the circumstances," … was prima facie … unsound. … In these circumstances where the judge erred in law by imposing an incorrect burden of proof on the appellant, it is open to the Court, this time applying the correct standard of proof, to draw its own conclusions from the evidence [citing Ludco, at para. 34]. Since the 10% rate actually used fell within what the above evidence indicated was a reasonable range, such a prima facie case had been established – so that the onus shifted to the ARQ, which had “failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the 10% interest rate was unreasonable within the meaning of TA section 420.” ...

In finding that the taxpayer had failed to establish his residence in Quebec on December 31, 2013, Breault JCQ stated (at paras. 57-58, 64, TaxInterpretations translation): [T]o use the expressions … in … Thomson and Reeder cases … Mr. ... [His] visits to Quebec (during the relevant period) … were clearly only temporary and limited in nature. ... [T]he alleged intention to return to Quebec … is more a reflection or strategy after the fact than something demonstrably supported by proven and probative facts. ...

In finding that Art. 23(1) had such effect, the Court stated (at para. 15): The effect of Article 23 … is that the payments in question are deemed to have an Australian source for the purposes of s 6-5(3)(a). ... They do not oblige the contracting states to tax: Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Lamesa Holdings BV (1997) 77 FCR 597 (“ Lamesa ”) at 600-601; GE Capital at [36]. ...

That is a legal relationship involving reciprocal performance. … The real value of CSP's claim was an account of Praesto's profits. CSP was seeking to put Praesto out of business as its competitor. … The FTT was satisfied and found that the litigation was effectively being brought against Mr Ranson and Praesto, even though Praesto had not been joined to the proceedings. ... In a dissenting reasons, Sir Terence Etherton MR stated (at paras 86 and 88): The personal belief of Mr Ranson and the understanding of Sintons that CSP was "attacking" Praesto, as well as Mr Ranson, and seeking to put Praesto out of business do not establish the requisite objective direct and immediate link to Praesto's economic activity as a whole. … … The objective link between those services and the success of Praesto's business was not direct but indirect and was not immediate but consequential. ...

Target Group Ltd v Revenue and Customs, [2023] UKSC 35-- summary under Paragraph (a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 123- Subsection 123(1)- Financial Service- Paragraph (a) exemption for “transactions … concerning … payments” did not include causing funds transfers through issuing instructions to the payment system The appellant (“Target”) administered loans made by a provider of mortgages and loans (“Shawbrook”), including by operating individual loan accounts and instigating and processing payments due from borrowers. Article 135(1)(d) of the Council Directive 2006/112/EC (the “Principal VAT Directive”) exempted “transactions, … concerning …payments, transfers, debts, … but excluding debt collection”. ...

After finding (at para. 30) that “there is no doubt that the activity in which the Applicant wishes to engage – public advocacy of policy change – is within the guarantee of freedom of expression,” and noting (at para. 31) the Attorney General’s argument that “the Applicant has a right to free speech, not to subsidized speech” through the ability to issue charitable receipts, Morgan J further stated (at paras 39, 42 and 43): [V]irtually everything that the Applicant does is “political”, although those political activities are conceptually ancillary to –i.e. a mechanism to achieve – its charitable activities and purpose. … Simply put, there is no way to pursue the Applicant’s charitable purpose – using methodology that is recognized as necessary by Parliament itself – while restricting its politically expressive activity to 10% of its resources as required by CRA under s. 149.1(6.2). … Moreover, the evidence is that the Applicant cannot function – or will have difficulty in functioning – in the absence of registered charitable status. ...

Before annulling this decision of the ARQ and returning the file to the ARQ for a fresh decision, Moore JCS stated (at paras. 28-29, 31-35, TaxInterpretations translation): Section 94.1 of the Tax Administration Act gives the Agency broad discretion and allows it to cancel up to 100% of the interest charged on late payment of amounts owing: "The Minister may … cancel, in whole or in part, any interest, penalty or charge exigible under a fiscal law.” On the other hand, the Interpretation Bulletin, written to guide the exercise of the discretion described in section 94.1, only provides for the cancellation of a portion of the interest charged in the context of a wash transaction. … The second page of the Agency's August 17, 2015 letter reads: "Revenu Québec acknowledges that [the associated corporation] could have claimed inputs earlier if it had been invoiced at the right time and that no loss to Revenu Québec resulted. That is why we waived, when issuing notices of assessment, interest exceeding the 4%. rate [...] […] The interest limited to 4% imposed on you is applicable to this type of transaction for all mandataries.... ...

. … Thus, when section 93.1.6 of the T.A.A. provides that, in the case of an objection to an assessment, “ the Minister shall (…) reconsider the assessment and (…) make a reassessment, and send the Minister's decision to the person by mail,” one should instead read “to the person and to its designated representative, if any ”…. ...