Search - 2002年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

BETWEEN:                                                             NOVOPHARM LIMITED                                                                                                                                                        Appellant                                                                                  and                                                         HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN                                                                                                                                                    Respondent                                             Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on January 15, 2003.                                     ... BETWEEN:                                                             NOVOPHARM LIMITED                                                                                                                                                        Appellant                                                                                  and                                                         HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN                                                                                                                                                    Respondent                                                         REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ROTHSTEIN J.A. [1]                 There are four issues in this appeal from a decision of the Tax Court (2002 D.T.C. 1307): 1.         ... Canada, [2002] 2 F.C. 288 (C.A.) at paragraph 33. A deeming provision may favour the Minister in one case, or the taxpayer in another. ...

MACTAVISH J.A.     BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Appellant and IRIS TECHNOLOGIES INC. ... Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33: Hospira Healthcare Corp v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215 at paras. 64-65, leave to appeal refused, [2017] 1 S.C.R. xi. ...

Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33; and Hospira Healthcare Corporation v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215. [6] For the reasons that follow, I would dismiss the appeal. ... THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE     PLACE OF HEARING: Halifax, Nova Scotia   DATE OF HEARING: March 23, 2022   REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: MONAGHAN J.A.   ... LASKIN J.A.   DATED: August 31, 2022   APPEARANCES: Brian Casey QC For The Appellant   Devon E. ...

Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235. Accordingly, questions of law are to be assessed on a standard of correctness while questions of fact and mixed fact and law are to be assessed on the standard of reasonableness. ... I would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.         "J.D. Denis Pelletier" J.A.   “I agree.      Gilles Létourneau J.A.”   “I agree.      David Stratas J.A.”     ...

LEBLANC J.A.     BETWEEN:     THE GLADWIN REALTY CORPORATION     Appellant     and     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN     Respondent   Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 8, 2020. ... LEBLANC J.A.     BETWEEN:     THE GLADWIN REALTY CORPORATION     Appellant     and     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN     Respondent   REASONS FOR JUDGMENT NOËL C.J. [1]   This is an appeal brought by The Gladwin Realty Corporation Inc. ... Nikolaisen,  2002 SCC 33,  [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235 [Housen], para. 37). The abuse analysis requires in turn that the object, spirit and purpose of the provisions enabling the tax benefit be determined (Copthorne, para. 70), an exercise that gives rise to an extricable question of law to be assessed on a standard of correctness (Canada Trustco, para. 44; Housen, paras. 8, 37). ...

Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235 at para. 37 [Housen]). However, the abuse analysis proceeds in two stages. ... Canada, 2002 FCA 291, [2003] 2 F.C.R. 25 [Water’s Edge] at paragraphs 37 to 41). [51]   Subsection 100(1) was enacted at the time when the capital gains system was introduced in 1972. ... Drouin Deputy Attorney General of Canada   For The APPELLANT   Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent     ...

I.   Facts [3]   All goods imported to Canada are subject to the provisions of the Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.), the Customs Tariff, S.C. 1997, c. 36, the Excise Act, 2001, S.C. 2002, c. 22, the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. ... HONEY FASHIONS LTD     PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec   DATE OF HEARING: November 6, 2019   REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DE MONTIGNY J.A.   ... Drouin Deputy Attorney General of Canada   For The Appellant   Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP Montréal, Quebec   For The Respondent     ...

Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33). IV. Relevant Statutory Provisions [15] A terminal loss is deductible under subsection 20(16) of the Act: (16) Notwithstanding paragraphs 18(1)(a), 18(1)(b) and 18(1)(h), where at the end of a taxation year, (16) Malgré les alinéas 18(1) a), b) et h), lorsque, à la fin d’une année d’imposition: (a) the total of all amounts used to determine A to D.1 in the definition undepreciated capital cost in subsection 13(21) in respect of a taxpayer’s depreciable property of a particular class exceeds the total of all amounts used to determine E to K in that definition in respect of that property, and a) d’une part, le total des montants entrant dans le calcul des éléments A à D.1 de la formule figurant à la définition de fraction non amortie du coût en capital au paragraphe 13(21) excède le total des montants entrant dans le calcul des éléments E à K de la même formule, au titre des biens amortissables d’une catégorie prescrite d’un contribuable; (b) the taxpayer no longer owns any property of that class, b) d’autre part, le contribuable ne possède plus de biens de cette catégorie, in computing the taxpayer’s income for the year dans le calcul de son revenu pour l’année: (c) there shall be deducted the amount of the excess determined under paragraph 20(16)(a), and c) il doit déduire l’excédent déterminé en vertu de l’alinéa a); (d) no amount shall be deducted for the year under paragraph 20(1)(a) in respect of property of that class. d) il ne peut déduire aucun montant pour l’année en vertu de l’alinéa (1) a) à l’égard des biens de cette catégorie. [16] UCC is defined in subsection 13(21) of the Act as a formula ((A + B + C + D + D.1)- (E + E.1 + F + G + H + I + J + K)). ... The relevant parts of the definition of UCC are as follows: undepreciated capital cost  to a taxpayer of depreciable property of a prescribed class as of any time means the amount determined by the formula fraction non amortie du coût en capital  S’agissant de la fraction non amortie du coût en capital existant à un moment donné pour un contribuable, relativement à des biens amortissables d’une catégorie prescrite, le montant calculé selon la formule suivante: (A + B + C + D + D.1)- (E + E.1 + F + G + H + I + J + K) (A + B + C + D + D.1)- (E + E.1 + F + G + H + I + J + K) Where où: … […] A is the total of all amounts each of which is the capital cost to the taxpayer of a depreciable property of the class acquired before that time, A représente le total des sommes dont chacune est le coût en capital que le contribuable a supporté pour chaque bien amortissable de cette catégorie acquis avant ce moment; … […] E is the total depreciation allowed to the taxpayer for property of the class before that time… E l’amortissement total accordé au contribuable relativement aux biens de cette catégorie avant ce moment… F is the total of all amounts each of which is an amount in respect of a disposition before that time of property … of the taxpayer of the class, and is the lesser of F le total des sommes dont chacune est, pour une disposition, avant ce moment, de biens … de cette catégorie dont le contribuable est propriétaire, la moins élevée des sommes suivantes: (a) the proceeds of disposition of the property minus any outlays and expenses to the extent that they were made or incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of making the disposition, and a) le produit de disposition des biens moins les dépenses engagées ou effectuées en vue de la disposition; (b) the capital cost to the taxpayer of the property, b) le coût en capital que ce contribuable a supporté pour les biens; [17] The total depreciation allowed to a taxpayer is defined in subsection 13(21) of the Act. ... Analysis [21] A terminal loss arises under subsection 20(16) of the Act when a taxpayer no longer has any assets of a particular class at the end of a taxation year and (a) the total of the amounts that would increase the UCC of the assets of that class at that time (A + B + C + D + D.1) is greater than (b) the total of the amounts that would be deducted in determining the UCC of the assets of that class at that time (E + E.1 + F + G + H + I + J + K). [22] In this particular case, the Trust realized a terminal loss in 2017 because the Trust no longer had any assets in a particular class (Class 13) and the amounts added in determining the UCC of the assets of that class (A to D.1) exceeded the total of the amounts deducted in determining the UCC of the assets of that class (E to K). ...

MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE   PLACE OF HEARING: BY ONLINE VIDEOCONFERENCE     DATE OF HEARING: February 9, 2021     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: RIVOALEN J.A.     ... LOCKE J.A.     DATED: MARCH 24, 2021     APPEARANCES: Nicolas X. Cloutier Samuel Julien   For the appellant   Pierre Lamothe Chantal Roberge Nancy Azzi   For the respondent   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: McCarthy Tétrault L.L.P. Montreal, Quebec   FOR THE APPELLANT   Nathalie G. Drouin Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the respondent     ...

Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33.) [33] With respect to the applicable principles of statutory interpretation, a textual, contextual, and purposive analysis of the relevant provisions must be undertaken. ... These dictionaries defined “obtain” as: “to come into possession of; get, acquire, or procure”; and “ recueillir ” as: “ rassembler des choses ”, “ obtenir pour soi ”, “ recevoir ”, and “ acquérir ” (Decision at para. 38). ... Canada (National Capital Commission), 2002 FCT 700 at para. 14 [Canada Post]. ...