Search - 阿里拍卖 司法拍卖

The [definition] … by no means speaks to specifically allowing different financial year-ends for Quebec purposes. The BCCA [in Veracity] … conclude[s] that because there is no uniform system of provincial taxation in Canada, then something may well “fall through the cracks. Such reasoning may well apply where provinces ascribe different tax treatment to the same category of revenue …. ...

Convention provided: … United States tax paid under the law of the United States and in accordance with this Convention … in respect of income derived from sources in the United States by …a resident of Australia shall be allowed as a credit against Australian tax payable in respect of the income. … Subject to these general principles, the credit shall be in accordance with the provisions and subject to the limitations of the law of Australia as that law may be in force from time to time. In concurring with Steward J that the Commissioner’s approach accorded with Art. 22(2), Jackson J stated (at paras. 166, 168-169): The general principle expressed in the first sentence of Art 22(2) is that if a person who is an Australian resident for the purposes of Australian taxation law pays United States tax in respect of income (including a gain) derived from sources in the United States, the Australian government must allow a credit against Australian tax payable in respect of that income. … The requirement that the amount of income be the same in the case of each of the United States tax paid and the Australian tax payable emerges from the syntax of Art 22(2). ...

When he thereupon put the home up for sale, she got him to agree to take it back off the market, and to convey (in December 2010) a ½ co-ownership interest in it to her (with it being understood that as a quid pro quo she would not seek support from him), before the home was put back on the market and sold (in June 2011), resulting in the receipt by her of $144,000. ... Schrager JCA noted (at para. 38) that a “Consent on Ancillary Measures” signed by the parties in 2014 (i) confirmed that they ceased to have a married life together in the fall of 2010 (prior to the deed of assignment) and (ii) further stated: In consideration of the division of movable and immovable property which the parties made in December 2010 and early 2011, the plaintiff waives maintenance for her and all remedies which she could assert against the defendant's estate …. However, he found (a para. 39) that the Consent did not “confirm a written separation agreement previously entered into by the parties … [or] that the deed of assignment constituted such an agreement.” ...

. … With regard to [the 250 unit], the condition to be fulfilled was the construction of [the 265 unit] which was actually carried out, thus having the effect of destroying the contractual link existing between the parties in question. extinguishing it as if it had never existed, without the need for other formalities and by the sole effect of the law. … As for [the model unit], the resolutory condition that had to be fulfilled was to find a new buyer, which materialized on August 21, 2014. In this case also the fulfillment of the condition had, following the application of the law, the effect of destroying the contractual link existing between the parties by extinguishing it as if it had never existed. … In other words, the resolution which operates automatically is valid between the parties even in the absence of the registration of a deed, such as the deed of retrocession, in the office for the registration of real estate rights. But since a deed of retrocession concerns the transmission or extinction of a real immovable right, it must be registered in the land registry and its registration aims, among other things, to publicize to third parties the resolution of the sale. … Since the court has concluded that we are in the presence of a single supply for which the consideration, following the resolution of the sales, was reduced to nil, QSTA section 448 applies, especially since it is not disputed that the requirements of QSTA section 449 are satisfied. ...

From this perspective, QST was avoided as a result of the vehicle being gifted by her ex-husband to her daughter, and then by her daughter to her – both of them, related-person transfers. In finding that these were not avoidance transactions for Quebec GAAR purposes, Poirier JCQ accepted the taxpayer’s testimony that the transactions had to happen this way in order for her to get the vehicle – her ex was only prepared to give the vehicle to her daughter. ...

In confirming this aspect of the assessment, Chalilfour JCQ noted (at paras. 116-117, TaxInterpretations translation): … Mr. ... It is appropriate to correct that situation. … The professional dues paid by Kyard must be added to the net income of Mr. ...

. … [P]ermitting the consolidation, within a single corporation, of tax charges related to remuneration of employees or directors of different corporations would risk … the inducing of an erosion of FDRCMO assessments which usually would be separately assumed by the corporations. ...

Agence du revenu du Québec, 2023 QCCA 633-- summary under Provincial Law Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Provincial Law presumption of coherence in interpreting similar federal and provincial provisions In finding that it was appropriate to apply, in interpreting a Quebec Taxation Act provision, the interpretation that had been accorded in Vancouver Metal Arts to the similar federal provision on which the Quebec provision had been modelled, the Court stated (at paras. 46, 48, TaxInterpretations translation): [T]he legislature … clearly wished to favour a harmonization in this regard between the Quebec and federal tax regimes. An interpretation of TA section 250.3 that differed from that of its federal equivalent in ITA subsection 39(5) would derogate from this legislative objective. … [I]n tax matters, where the federal and provincial provisions are appreciably in the same form, a presumption of coherence between the two provisions should prevail. ...

. …. Gibeault could, qua "Protector" remove the Trustee and replace him…. ... …[R]especting the Class B shares which were the principal asset of the NS Trust, Cetco, controlled by … Gibeault, always had the right to retract these shares…. ... All these facts establish that the real control of the NS Trust is in the hands of … Gibeault and of Cetco, two residents of Quebec, who acted through their agents, BCF, RCGT and Roy D. ...

In reversing the chambers judge and dismissing the application under s. 195, Newbury JA stated (at para 40): … Instead of ‘delving into’ the question of value (see [BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders, 2008 SCC 69] at para. 141), [the chambers judge] relied on the truism that the shareholders were “entitled to make the decision”. ... Given the ‘red flags’ in this case – the absence of a fairness opinion from an independent expert, the failure of Morgan Stanley to assess the value of the CRP as compared with the value of the PRL prospects (again, the company’s primary asset); the deficiencies pointed out by Mr. ... Booth; the fact the CEO [who stood to receive contingent compenstion of $35M on completion] was in a position of conflict; the probability the “independent” special committee was not independent of management; and the lack of “necessity” for the deal – the Court was required to do more than accept the vote of the majority as a “proxy” for fairness, or the cash amount of Exxon’s offer as a proxy for reasonableness. ...