Search - 阿里拍卖 司法拍卖

The majority reasons (for Middleton and Steward JJ – with whom Thawley J agreed in the result) found that for the transfer–pricing purposes at issue, it was posing the wrong question to ask “whether an arm’s length party would have agreed to the amendments, given the pre-existing terms of trade” (para. 188), and that the correct question was simply whether “the pricing formula established by those [amended] terms did not differ from those formulae which might be expected to have operated between independent enterprises dealing wholly independently with one another in the copper concentrate market at the time” (para. 191). ... In finding this approach to be insufficiently nuanced, the majority stated, that in determining the arm’s length consideration: “one should include all of the objective circumstances of the actual … mine” and the “objective circumstances of the copper concentrate market as at February 2007” (para. 179) “it would be appropriate to exclude any considerations that are the product of C.M.P.L.’s non-arm’s length relationship with G.I.A.G. and the broader Glencore Group” which “would include whatever attitude or policy C.M.P.L. had formed about the issue of risk when selling to G.I.A.G” (para. 180) “C.M.P.L. … could legitimately adopt a more conservative approach to risk so long as it was commercially rational to do so, and it is what an independent party dealing at arm’s length might reasonably be expected to have done” (para. 181) “the possibility of a range of arm’s length outcomes, each of which would be sufficient to answer the statutory test, is supported by authority” (para. 183) ...

Respecting the second question, there was an insufficient link to future supplies (paras. 123 & 124): [A]n intention merely to make supplies is not a sufficient basis on which to recover input tax… … What needs to be established is a direct and immediate link between the services supplied and the charges levied or to be levied. ...

In rejecting the assessment officer’s position that the activities carried on by Adobe India were part of the taxpayer’s core business activities carried on through Adobe India as its permanent establishment, and that the taxpayer was subject to Indian income tax on a portion of its global profits based on the fraction of global R&D expenditures represented by those expended in India, Bakhru J stated (at paras. 23): [T]here is no dispute that Adobe India- which according to the AO is the Assessee’s PE – has been independently taxed on income from R&D services and such tax has been computed on the basis that its dealings with the Assessee are at arm’s length (that is, at ALP). Therefore, even if Adobe India is considered to be the Assessee’s PE, the entire income which could be brought in the net of tax in in the hands of the Assesee has already been so taxed in the hands of Adobe India … Thus…the facts in this case do not provide the AO any reason to believe that any part of the Assessee’s income has escaped assessment under the Act. ...

. … [T]he risk of such deductions being disallowed ought most efficiently to rest with those seeking to benefit from the scheme rather than with taxpayers at large. … I would disallow the claimed duty of care as a matter of public policy. ...

In turning to ADFT’s argument, Lederman J found that there was a valid waiver pursuant to the Ontario Act for purposes of waiving the normal reassessment period, stating (at paras. 32, 34): The word “purporting” means “signify, imply, profess to be … appear ostensibly to be”…. ... In this way, it implies or purports to be a prescribed form. … The prescription imposed by the Minister is sufficiently evidenced by the …indicia on the form. ...

He stated (at para 17): … If the original notice does not constitute notification of no tax payable in all provincial or territorial jurisdictions, then a taxpayer receiving such a notice, could be assessed for income taxes in any other province or territory indefinitely. … He also indicated that it was contradictory to treat the same (2012) Notice as a reassessment of Alberta tax and as an original assessment of Ontario tax. ...

. … In particular, a supply must be regarded as ancillary to a principal supply if it does not constitute for customers an end in itself but a means of better enjoying the principal service supplied…. ... …Stock ‘94 itself acknowledges …, not having authorisation to act as a credit institution, it could not grant loans to the integrated producers without their being intended for the purchase of its current assets. ...

Before declaring that the taxpayer was supplying “taxi travel,” Griffiths J stated (at paras. 135, 138): … I consider that the words in s 195-1 should be given their ordinary, everyday meanings and not a trade or specialised meaning (including one which reflects what Dr Abelson describes as a “regulatory concept”). I accept …that the ordinary meaning of the word “taxi” is a vehicle available for hire by the public and which transports a passenger at his or her direction for the payment of a fare that will often, but not always, be calculated by reference to a taximeter. … The fact that his car did not have a taximeter installed in it is not determinative…. ...

It is clear … the Commissioner dealt with TD’s request on the basis that her discretion was circumscribed by the extraordinary-circumstances exception. … By doing so, she fettered the broad discretion given to her by s. 24(1) of the IBAA, and her decision is, therefore, unreasonable. ...

The taxpayer submitted that he had ceased to be a limited partner by virtue of s. 2244 of the Civil Code- which provided that a limited partner “may not negotiate any business on behalf of the partnership or act as mandatary or agent for the partnership” – on the basis of his involvement in the business of SEC including negotiating with suppliers and making various purchases. ... Breault JCQ also stated that he shared the conclusion in an article (quoted at para. 87) that: We are in complete disagreement with the position…that the control exercised by a limited partner or limited partners over the corporate general partner suffices to engage liability of the limited partners by the combined application of articles 317 and 2244 of the C.c.Q. … [I]t is only in the common law provinces that the control of the internal management of a limited partnership gives rise to liability of the limited partners…. ...