Search - 2002年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

" More recently, in 2002 SCC 33 "> Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, the Supreme Court examined in great detail the role of an appellate court in reviewing findings of fact and inferences of fact made by trial judges. ... "                                               ENDNOTES                           FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL     NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET:                   A-47-02 APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL DIVISION DATED MARCH 7, 2002, TRIAL DIVISION FILE NO. ... AL.                                                           PLACE OF HEARING:                                   Ottawa, Ontario DATE OF HEARING:                                     November 19, 20 & 21, 2002 REASONS FOR       JUDGMENT BY:                                       NADON J.A. ...

Peterson filed an appeal in 2000 in respect of 1995, 1996 and 1997 under the General Procedure, involving in part at least the same payments. [2]                 In February, 2002 the Respondent filed a motion for an order pursuant to subsection 174(3) of the Income Tax Act joining Tossell as a party in Peterson's appeal so that all the issues concerning these payments could be determined in one proceeding where both interested taxpayers would be represented. (Generally speaking, a finding that the payments were non-taxable for him and taxable in her hands, or vice-versa, would affect both of the ex-spouses). [3]                 Mogan J. of the Tax Court of Canada made such an order on March 26, 2002. ... As the order of Mogan J. of March 26, 2002 only made her a party to Peterson's appeal she objects to her appeal having been heard and disposed of in the September, 2003 process. [8]                 Her appeal here only names Her Majesty as respondent. ...

  [2]                The issues are related but since variations exist between the two cases, separate reasons for judgment are rendered in each appeal. [3]                At issue in the case at bar is whether fees paid by the appellant, the Canadian Medical Protective Association (the CMPA) to certain investment managers for the periods ranging from October 15, 2001 to October 15, 2003 and from January 1, 2002 to March 31, 2004, are exempt from GST because they are “financial services” under the definition found in subsection 123(1) of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. ... The second claim covered the period from January 1, 2002, to March 31, 2004 ... Nikolaisen, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235 at paragraphs 8 ff).     THE ISSUE – THE CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES   [31]            Both parties recognize that the service of arranging for the purchase and sale of securities is a service included in paragraph 123(1)(d) and (l) of the Act which refers to “arranging  for … the transfer of ownership … of a financial instrument”; « … prendre les mesures en vue d’effectuer … le transfert de propriété d’un effet financier ». [32]            Hence, as a minimum, both parties agree that no GST is payable on brokers’ fees because the service brokers supply is a financial service ...

However, an order requiring such payments was not obtained until June 2002. [3]                The respondent denied the appellant's claim for deductions of the spousal payments for the extended period of 15 months. [4]                The Tax Court Judge held that such payments were not deductable because they were not payable under a Court order or written agreement. [5]                The Tax Court Judge held that subsection 60.1(3) of the Income Tax Act only permitted deduction of payments if they were made in the year of or the year preceding the June 2002 order, which was not the case here. [6]                Before us the appellant argued: a.          ... that the Income Tax Act deems the 2002 order to have had effect in 1997. [7]                The appellant argued that because the respondent asked for documentation that would support the appellant's claim for a deduction, the respondent had waived the requirements of subsection 60.1(3). ... That subsection clearly means that with reference to the 2002 order, deductions can only be claimed in the year or the preceding taxation year from the date of the 2002 order. [12]            We can find no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the factual findings of the Tax Court Judge. [13]            The appeal will therefore be dismissed with costs.          ...

The reassessment was issued on January 31, 2002, a date that was beyond the normal reassessment period, within the meaning of paragraph 152(3.1)(b) of the ITA, for the Estate in respect of its 1996 taxation year. ...   [14]            On November 28, 2001, the Minister wrote to the Estate advising of the unreported RSP income in relation to the MFC RSP and on January 31, 2002, the reassessment was issued ... Michael Ryer” J.A.     “I agree K. Sharlow J.A.”   “I agree J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A.”   ...

Canada (M.N.R.), 2002 FCA 144, [2002] F.C.J. No. 572 (QL), and in Gallant supra is whether NCJ had the power to exercise control and direction over the work of its workers. ... The Queen, [2002] 4 F.C. 396, per Décary J.A.; 9041-6868 Quebec Inc., par. 12; Michel Grimard v. ... Canada (Minister of National Revenue – M.N.R.), 2002 FCA 144.   [64]            The Tax Court Judge wrote (at para. 29) that “the evidence does not disclose very many acts of direction or control exercised by NCJ over the work of the workers. ...

BETWEEN:                                                             JOZO (JOE) KOVACEVIC                                                                                                                                                        Appellant                                                                                  and                                                            HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN                                                                                                                                                    Respondent                                               Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on June 17, 2003.                                       ... CONCURRED IN BY:                                                                                                               NOËL J.A.                                                                                                                                                ... He says that it was on or about May 4, 2001, that he was informed by a collections officer of the Minister that he was personally liable as a director for the GST obligations of the company. [4]                 By Notice of Decision dated November 22, 2001, the Minister dismissed the appellant's appeal for an extension of time to challenge the assessment. [5]                 By Notice of Appeal dated December 21, 2001, the appellant appealed to the Tax Court. [6]                 On or about May 22, 2002, the Minister filed a Notice of Motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal on the grounds that it was filed out of time. [7]                 By decision dated July 25, 2002, the Tax Court Judge granted the Minister's motion and dismissed the appellant's appeal. [8]                 The appellant now appeals that decision to this Court. ...

SHARLOW J.A.                         RYER J.A.   BETWEEN: Docket: A-36-07   1536378 ONTARIO LIMITED O/A B-PRO GROOMING  Appellant   and   THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE   Respondent   AND BETWEEN: Docket: A-37-07   1536378 ONTARIO LIMITED O/A B-PRO GROOMING  Appellant   and     THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent   AND BETWEEN: Docket: A-38-07   1536378 ONTARIO LIMITED O/A B-PRO GROOMING  Appellant   and   THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent   AND BETWEEN: Docket: A-39-07   GINGER HODGKINSON  Appellant   and   THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent   AND BETWEEN:   Docket: A-40-07   1536378 ONTARIO LIMITED  Appellant   and   THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent AND BETWEEN:   Docket: A-41-07   KRISTA M. ... Nikolaisen, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235 at paragraphs 27-28).   [6]                The appellants argue that the Tax Court Judge failed to completely articulate a test to determine if a worker is an independent contractor or an employee.  ... DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA   TORONTO, ONTARIO     FOR THE RESPONDENT     ...

The Class C Shares were redeemable by Ford Credit, at any time, and retractable by their holder, at any time after July 31, 2002. ...   [11]            Ford Credit filed returns for its 2001, 2002 and 2003 taxation years on the basis that the amount of its capital stock (“capital stock”), within the meaning of subparagraph 181.3(3)(a)(ii), did not include any amount in respect of the Class C Shares ...   [12]            In three separate notices of reassessment, each dated December 13, 2004, the Minister reassessed Ford Credit an additional amount of tax under Part I.3 of the ITA, including interest, for each of its 2001, 2002 and 2003 taxation years. ...

Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235).   [35]            In my humble opinion, the TCC judge gave a complete response to the arguments raised by counsel for RCI (2006). ... Toronto Refiners And Smelters Limited, 2002 FCA 476, to say that the analysis should be made from the perspective of the payer ... Canada (A.G.), 2002 FCA 370, paragraphs 8 to 10).   [52]            I therefore conclude that the hypothetical question should be analysed from the perspective of the two taxpayers in question, namely RCI and CTVNS. ...