Search - 阿里拍卖 司法拍卖

ARQ, 2016 QCCQ 9461-- summary under Subparagraph (c)(i) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 127- Subsection 127(9)- Qualified Property- Paragraph (c)- Subparagraph (c)(i) transporting trucks with decanting tanks used in M&P Some of the trucks in the fleet of trucks of the taxpayer (“Sanivac”) were non-customized trucks used to pump out used oil from customers’ facilities, and drive back to the Sanivac facilities, where they would be stationary for about 12 hours, during which time the oils were allowed to settle in the trucks’ tanks – after which they were transferred to other tanks at the facility for further processing. ... In finding that these trucks were qualified properties for purposes of the Quebec investment tax credit under s. 1029.8.36.166.40 of the Taxation Act (an approximate equivalent of ITA s. 127(9) – qualified property – (c)(i)), Guimond JCQ stated (at paras. 43-45, 50): [I]t has been demonstrated the combination of the processes were necessary inter alia in order to ensure the traceability of PCBs when identified. ... Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that the modifications made to the equipment were necessary in order to obtain oil of a better quality for business use and in order to lend itself to sale at a higher price. … One fact remains, which is that the equipment was purchased and modified for the specific purpose of acquiring contaminated, diluted and snarled materials for their purification and resale as a finished product. ...

Although s. 206.1 of the Quebec Sales Tax Act denied an input tax refund for tax on supplies of electricity, s. 206.3 provided an exclusion from this rule where the electricity was used for a purpose that came within the exemption in s. 17(aa) of the Quebec Retail Sales Tax Act (“RSTA”), which exempted “sales of electricity … which a person … uses to produce movable property … intended for sale/” The Court of Quebec followed C.R.I. ...

Article 168(a) provided: In so far as the goods and services are used for the purposes of the taxed transactions of a taxable person, the taxable person shall be entitled, in the Member State in which he carries out these transactions, to deduct the following from the VAT which he is liable to pay: … the VAT due or paid in that Member State in respect of supplies to him of goods or services, carried out or to be carried out by another taxable person; The Court stated (at paras 33-35): It is clear … that, without the reconstruction of that pump station, it would have been impossible to connect the buildings …to that pump station, with the result that that reconstruction was essential for completing that project and that, consequently, in the absence of such reconstruction, Iberdrola would not have been able to carry out its economic activity. ... The fact that the municipality of Tsarevo also benefits from that service cannot justify the right to deduct corresponding to that service being denied to Iberdrola if the existence of such a direct and immediate link is established …. The Court concluded (at para 41): … Article 168(a) … must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person has the right to deduct input value added tax in respect of a supply of services consisting of the construction or improvement of a property owned by a third party when that third party enjoys the results of those services free of charge and when those services are used both by the taxable person and by the third party in the context of their economic activity, in so far as those services do not exceed that which is necessary to allow that taxable person to carry out the taxable output transactions and where their cost is included in the price of those transactions. ...

He went on to indicate (at para. 49) that in any event, the daughter could be considered to be “subject to tax”: … The income tax legislation … applies to all Canadian residents … because they may, in one year or another, earn business income in Quebec…. ... Before cancelling the reassessments, Cameron JCQ stated (at para 57): …On a direct reading of the text, giving the words their ordinary meaning, … the fact that the student does or does not have to pay a tax in a given year does not have a bearing on the option of the parent using the credit. ... In that light, a generous interpretation should be given, … and the Court should not read in restrictions that are not to be found in the legislator’s choice of the words used and those not used. ...

. … The respondents' contention that the phrase "is presently entitled" should be construed to mean " really is " presently entitled (emphasis added) for that income year, such that, for "a reasonable period" after the end of the income year, later events could subsequently disentitle a beneficiary who was presently entitled immediately before the end of the income year, is rejected. ...

. … [The] food-grade mineral fibre substrate [used] instead of soil … plays the same role as soil …. ...

Arden LJ found (at paras 62, 63, 64 and 65): … The view that a policy may be changed if there is good reason to do so is supported by the judgment of Lord Dyson in WL Congo …, by Elias LJ in Lewisham…, and by Bhatt Murphy…. … As Bingham LJ put it in MFK, the taxpayer's only legitimate expectation is that he will be taxed according to statute, not concession or a wrong view of the law…. … In the present case taxpayers with Mansworth v Jelley losses were not in the same position if they were in open years as opposed to closed years. ... Arden LJ further found (at paras 72, 73, and 85): … [T]he question is whether or not there has been sufficient unfairness to prevent correction of the mistake. It is clear from the authorities that the unfairness has to reach a very high level: see, in particular, the holding of Simon Brown LJ in Unilever where he held that it … had to be outrageously or conspicuously unfair. … Arden LJ allowed HMRC’s appeal and dismissed the taxpayer’s notice, finding (at para 90): … [T]he respondent has to show conspicuous unfairness. … I consider that this is not shown…. ...

Bernardin, 2021 QCCA 625-- summary under Paragraph 12(1)(c) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 12- Subsection 12(1)- Paragraph 12(1)(c) interest that arose prior to a class action judgment becoming res judicata was non-taxable – interest arising thereafter was taxable even though judgment not yet quantified An individual, by virtue of being part of a group of class action claimants, was awarded damages in 2004 of $1,200 for each of the eight winter seasons in which she had endured snowmobile noise. ... It is sufficient (and here I paraphrase Rand J. in … Farm Security …) that there be a use or retention by one person of a sum of money belonging to or owed to another. ... But not here …. Once the November 30, 2004 judgment became res judicata, there was a definite sum owing (a liquidated and certain debt) on which actual interest could accrue. ...

Custeau, 2020 QCCA 1496-- summary under Subsection 248(10) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(10) s. 248(10) “in contemplation of” test appropriately applied only on a forward-looking basis where the historical transaction was purely commercial When a family small business corporation (the “Corporation”) was in financial difficulty, a Quebec regional development fund and affiliated fund (the “Funds”) agreed (with an objective of saving jobs in the region) to inject equity capital in the Corporation on terms largely dictated by them – which entailed the funds investing (in 1997 and 1998) in the common shares of the Corporation (or in shares that were converted into the common shares of the Corporation), so that the paid-up capital of the taxpayers’ shares was boosted from a nominal amount to $1.45 million due to PUC averaging. ... The excerpt from Trustco shows that this may be an alternative exercise depending on the circumstances of the case. … Copthorne … approved both approaches because each situation is an individual case. ...

Before reversing the decision below that the masters were Class 8(j) tangible capital property, and agreeing with the ARQ that they instead were eligible capital property (now Class 14.1) property, Schrager JA referenced s. 18 of the Copyright Act, which provided that “the maker of a sound recording has a copyright in the sound recording, consisting of the sole right to … [inter alia] reproduce it in any material form,” and then stated (at para. 31): There are intangible rights … as described in section 18 … which were purchased in association with the physical tapes. ... The value is found in what is recorded on the plastic or cellulose and what Respondent can do with it – i.e. make and sell good quality copies …. ...