Search - 2002年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

In finding that the taxpayer’s claimed losses (except for an overstatement of the 2002 loss due to an “egregious error” – for which a gross negligence penalty was sustained) were fully deductible, Spiro J noted- in responding to a Crown submission based on the trading consistently generating small economic losses, so that there was no source of income – that Stewart established that “provided that one’s activity is clearly commercial, and that no personal element is involved, there is a source of income” (para. 201) and made “it clear that there is no ‘sufficiency’ test” (para. 209). ...

In affirming this finding, Boivin JA distinguished Kevin Davis Dentistry, which gave effect to the expressed Parliamentary intent to “provide for different tax treatment of supplies of orthodontic appliances and orthodontic service” (para. 25) whereas, here, the Ontario regulations did “not amount to as clear an indicator of Parliament’s intent as the GST Act did in Kevin Davis Dentistry ” and “the intended tax treatment of what would constitute separate supplies in the present circumstances is not outlined in any statute as it was in the GST Act in Kevin Davis Dentistry ” (para. 28). ... Québec (Sous-ministre du Revenu), 2002 CanLII 25441 (QC CA) was distinguishable on the ground that it “involved two separate contracts and two separate considerations paid, thus creating two distinct supplies” (para. 29). ...

ARQ assessed on the basis that Wesdome’s related expenditure did not qualify as Canadian exploration expense under s. 395(c) of the Taxation Act (essentially identical to ITA, s. 66.1(6) – Canadian exploration expense – (f)(vi)), as being “any expense that may reasonably be related to a mine in the mineral resource that has come into production in reasonable commercial quantities or to an actual or potential extension of such a mine.” In confirming the finding of Godbout J below that Wesdome’s expenditures qualified as CEE, Levesque JCA first stated (at paras. 80-81, TaxInterpretations translation): [T]he judge … correctly concluded that the provisions of section T.A. paragraph 395(c) did not require that the exploration expenses were to be incurred respecting a “new mine” to be eligible for tax credits. … [I]f the legislator had wished the contrary, this could have been expressly provided in the provision. ... It is true that the judge assimilated this concept to the fact that the Kiena mine was “in practice … considered as closed.” ...

Canada, 2018 FCA 121-- summary under Subsection 211.91(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 211.91- Subsection 211.91(1) Part XII.6 tax was payable on CEE purportedly renounced on a look-back basis to NAL shareholders For its 2002 to 2006 years, the taxpayer (“Tusk Exploration”- a Canadian exploration company) renounced Canadian exploration expenses (“CEE”) under s. 66(12.6) using the Look back” rule under s. 66(12.66). ... In rejecting this submission and confirming the Minister’s assessment of Tusk Exploration under Part XII.6, Webb JA stated (at paras 28-29): … [T]he reference to “purports to renounce” in subsection 66(12.73) … is a reference to an amount that the corporation stated in the forms that it filed that it was renouncing and hence an amount that it claimed that it was renouncing. ... Because Parliament has chosen to use two different expressions, it must mean that Parliament did not intend for the two expressions to be synonymous. … [P]aragraph 66(12.73)(d) … provides that any reduction in the amounts renounced does not affect the calculation of the amount payable under Part XII.6…. ...

Of the amounts pledged by the taxpayers in 2001 and 2002 to a charitable foundation (the “Foundation”), they would borrow amounts from a subsidiary of the promoter for between 80% to 85% of the pledged amount, and contribute the balance in cash. ... " "Therefore, whether the civil law or common law meaning of the word “gift" in 118.1 is used, the result would be the same in these cases because none of the Appellants had the requisite donative intent with respect to the cash portion of the amounts transferred to the Foundation. ... " ...

The basement unit (“9090”), which was accepted as representing 54% of the triplex, had been occupied by him for use as his residence and a home office since his purchase of the triplex in 2002. The two upper units (9092 and 9094, each representing 23% of the triplex), had been rented out by him to third parties until 2007, but he took the position that thereafter they represented personal use property of the taxpayer – although, for 14 months, he rented out one of the units to a friend at his stated cost of $400 per month- and, with the stated objective of improving the salability of the triplex, in 2011 he announced that 9094 was available for rent and leased it shortly before the sale of the triplex. ... Each must not be a distinct and autonomous unit; each must instead complement the other and lose to some extent its separate identity for the benefit of the whole. … [N]o transformation or modification of much significance was made to the Triplex in order for the three units to be linked in some manner to each other. … The units preserved their distinct character…. ...

In finding that the base payments made in its 1999 to 2002 taxation years did not satisfy the requirement under s. 18(1)(a) of having been incurred for the purpose of producing income from the taxpayer’s business, Owen J stated (at para. 40) that an “expenditure of the income that has been determined for a taxation period cannot be incurred as part of the process of earning that income” and that it should be considered in this regard “that the base payment only arises after the conclusion of the producer’s income earning process in respect of potash subject to the base payment tax” (para. 66) given that “[t]o compute the amount of a base payment for a year, a producer must first compute its profits for that year” (para. 64) and that “Liability for a base payment will exist only in respect of potash that has been “sold or otherwise disposed of” by a producer … [i.e.,] potash … [that] is no longer capable of producing income for the producer” (para. 65). ... The Saskatchewan legislature simply chose in the case of the base payment to substitute quantity of potash as a proxy for income to ensure that a minimum amount of tax would be collected in respect of such potash even if the producer did not have profits for the year …. ...

Machining Consulting into his corporation in 2002, but the transfer was not completed. Following a 2005 audit, CRA offered to settle the issues arising from the 2001 and 2002 taxation years if the taxpayer signed a waiver of his appeal rights for both years respecting his business income and expenses. ... In finding that CRA’s decision should stand, and in rejecting a submission (at para. 23) that “it was unfair for the Minister’s delegate not to ‘match’ the expenses he incurred in paying the rental payments for the two machines against the income he earned by using the machines, and…although his corporation’s name was on the lease with CIT, the corporation was in fact inactive,” Bowell J stated (at paras. 24 to 26): [T]he matching principle is not a rule of law which dictates or requires that expenses must always be matched with profits; it is simply an accounting principle that a court may or may not consider depending upon the particular facts and circumstances of a case. … …The Applicant chose to collect revenue generated by the machines personally, rather than through his corporation, and he cannot rely upon an accounting principle to ignore the legal reality of the lease and argue that the cost of the lease payments should be attributed to him personally and deductible from his personal income for the 2001 taxation year. …... ...

Blank v Commissioner of Taxation, [2016] HCA 42-- summary under Paragraph 6(1)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 6- Subsection 6(1)- Paragraph 6(1)(a) payments under profit-linked phantom units in affiliate were ordinary income when received The taxpayer was employed by Glencore International AG (“GI”), an international commodity trading business incorporated in Switzerland, or a subsidiary from November 1991 to December 2006, with his employment in Australia commencing in 2002 when he also became an Australian resident. ... In finding that the Amount was income to the taxpayer under s. 6-5(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, which provided that a person's "assessable income includes income according to ordinary concepts, which is called ordinary income," the Court stated (at paras 59, 61, and 63): The terms of the IPPA 2005 expressly stated that the Amount was deferred compensation from Mr Blank's employment with Glencore Australia. … The Amount was paid as a lump sum as an additional reward to Mr Blank for the services he had performed for the Glencore Group. … The IPPA 2005 also recorded that Mr Blank had no interest whatsoever in the GS and did not acquire any right in or title to any assets, funds or property of GI, Glencore AG or any other subsidiary. … [A] GS granted no more than a claim to a cumulative portion of the balance sheet profit, and that the claim was granted not upon the issue or allocation of the GS to the employee but upon restitution of the GS at the time the employment ceased. … The fact that the Amount was paid after the termination of the contract of service, by a person other than the employer (here, GI) and separately to ordinary wages, salary or bonuses, does not detract from its characterisation as income if the payment is, as here, a recognised incident of the employment. ...

After noting (at para. 725) that “the purpose of the foreign affiliate regime is to allow Canadian multinationals to compete in international markets through foreign subsidiaries without attracting Canadian income tax,” Owens J stated (at para. 726) that “there is nothing exceptional, unusual or inappropriate about the Appellant’s decision to … have CESA execute the HEU Feed Agreement.” Accordingly, the transactions respecting the HEU Feed and Urenco Agreements were not described in s. 247(2)(b)(i) – nor were the BPCs and CC Contracts, which were not “commercially irrational” (para. 736) – and it thus was not relevant (regarding s. 247(2)(b)(ii)) that the primary purpose of the series respecting the HEU Feed and Urenco Agreements (but not of the BPCs and CC Contracts) in light of the use as part of the series of a foreign affiliate (CESA/DCEL) was to save Canadian tax. Turning to s. 247(2)(a) and (c), he found that in light of the depressed uranium market at the time, the HEU Feed Agreement that in a sense was accorded on CESA did not have significant value, and that it only became very valuable to CESA as a result of the significant increase in market uranium prices after 2002 (para. 787) – and a similar analysis applied to the Urenco Agreement. ...