Search - 阿里拍卖 司法拍卖

In finding that the ARQ had not exceeded its territorial competence in making this requirement, Hogue JCA stated: Here we are not concerned with … a seizure outside of Quebec which, it is true, could require the seizing party to approach an authority of the foreign State with a view to obtaining its collaboration in order to proceed. … The communication of the requirement to BNC through one of its branches situated outside Quebec is the sole external element that is present here. ...

. … I accept that, when determining the nature of a transaction for VAT purposes, the court must look at the economic purpose of the transaction. However, the starting point is to determine what the parties have agreed. … [T]he court only goes behind the contract if the contract does not reflect the true agreement between the parties. ...

In rejecting her claim that this interest paid was a disposition expense under the Quebec equivalent of ss. 40(1)(a)(i), Vaillancourt JCQ stated (at paras. 32-34, TaxInterpretations translation): The plaintiff … recognized having received the amounts from Groupe Norbourg without any right thereto, which constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to her argument that she paid the interest on a loan. … [T]he plaintiff paid the interest to RSM for the sole purpose of buying time to repay the receiver the sums which she had received without any right thereto. ...

. … Without this requirement, Mr. Pelletier would have had no need to maintain his professional status in order to exercise his employment. He could have instead, as in the case of judges, ceased to pay the dues, which brought him nothing to the extent that he did not act as a lawyer. … This is especially true given the Mr. ...

Bastarache JA noted (at para. 12) the respondent’s argument “that the amount of GST claimed must be incorporated in the original invoice, receipt or agreement, and it cannot be changed subsequently,” and then rejected this position, stating (at para. 13): The Act … imposes the tax on the recipient of the service, not on the supplier. It would therefore be an unreasonable interpretation of subsection 223(1) to limit the sending of a notice of the amount of GST due to documents issued at the time the supply was received. … [T]he formulation of the obligations in s. 223(1) does not reveal any intention of Parliament to impose such a restriction. ...

Before going on to confirm the finding below that it represented an abuse of process for essentially the same issue to be relitigated in the Court of Quebec respecting the availability of input tax refunds under the parallel provisions under the Quebec Sales Tax Act and Regulations, Thibault JCA stated (at para. 32, TaxInterpretations translation) that “the Court of Quebec is not bound under the … stare decisis rule by a judgment rendered by the Tax Court of Canada.” ... C.U.P.E., Local 79, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77, 2003 SCC 63, paras. 52-53 (extract from para. 53 quoted below): … There are many circumstances in which the bar against relitigation, either through the doctrine of res judicata or that of abuse of process, would create unfairness. ...

That said … the Court is of the view the Minister should, in all equity, take steps under [such] agreements … so as to avoid this double taxation. ...

The availability to Praesto of an input tax credit for the VAT included in the Sintons invoices turned on a VAT provision providing such a credit for “VAT on the supply to him [the taxable person] of any goods or services being … goods or services used or to be used for the purpose of any business carried on or to be carried on by him.” ... CSP was seeking to put Praesto out of business as its competitor. … The FTT [below] 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 reversing the finding below that the taxpayer was carrying on a business and was entitled to deduct the claimed losses, the Court stated (at paras. 12, 16, TaxInterpretations translation): [T]he judge did not analyze the activities of the respondent in relation to the objective factors laid out … in Stewart, namely, (1) the profit and loss experience in past years; (2) the taxpayer’s training; (3) the taxpayer’s intended course of action; and (4) the capability of the venture to show a profit. … [I]t is difficult to conclude that the predominant intention of the respondent was to derive profit from the equestrian activities of his daughters and that he showed serious businesslike conduct. ...

. … In the absence of a conclusion that the promissory notes subscribed for the purchase of the … franchises constitute shams, the resulting legal effects must be respected. ...