Search - 2005年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

There must be a “show stopper” or “knockout punch” – an obvious, fatal flaw striking at the root of the Court's power to entertain the application. ... The Chief Justice referred to Krause v Canada, [1999] 2 FC 476 (“ Krause ”) and Airth v Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2006 FC 1442 (“ Airth ”), where a distinction was drawn between a “decision or order” to which the 30 day limit described in subsection 18.1(2) of the Act applies and a broader “matter” contemplated by subsection 18.1(1) of the Act, to which that limit does not apply. ... Costs are awarded to the respondent, fixed at $800.00, payable forthwith. blank “Trent Horne” blank Associate Judge   FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: T-1104-22 STYLE OF CAUSE: JOHN MCLAUGHLIN v AGC MOTION CONSDIERED IN WRITING WITHOUT THE PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES JUDGMENT AND REASONS: ASSOCIATE JUDGE TRENT HORNE   DATED: October 26, 2022   WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Glyn Hotz   For The Applicant   Aman Owais   For The Respondent   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: HOTZ LAWYERS Barristers and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario   For The Applicant   Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario   For The Respondent     ...

  [16]   Mr. Fleury returned to the premises in February 2014, drafted the wiretap orders and had surveillance cameras installed outside. ...   [24]   Ms. De Larochellière also analyzed the photographs filed in evidence. ... The Queen, 2005 TCC 330, para. 21). [54]   The guilty plea entered by the appellant before the Court of Québec and evidence filed constitute extrajudicial admissions (article 2852 CCQ), which were introduced in evidence with the filing of the transcript reproducing them. ...

The Queen, [1996] 2 C.T.C. 2005 in support of this proposition. The Appellant also urged the Court to deal with compassion and understanding in accordance with recent decisions such as Tanguay v. ... Miller DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                       August 27, 2001 APPEARANCES: Agent for the Appellant:                     Meluccia Di Marco Counsel for the Respondent:              R. Scott McDougall COUNSEL OF RECORD: For the Appellant:                 Name:                                Firm:                  For the Respondent:                             Morris Rosenberg                                                                                 Deputy Attorney General of Canada                                                                                                 Ottawa, Canada 2000-1349(IT)I BETWEEN: EVELYN ELLEN WILSON, Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent. ...

The Appellant provided additional information by letters dated June 8, 2005, January 17, 2006, August 30, 2011 and November 15, 2011. ... ]     [20]         The parallel provisions of the Income Tax Act (the “ ITA ”) are found in sections 165 and 169. ... Canada, 2005 FCA 159 the taxpayer was a specified person and raised in its Notice of Appeal in the Tax Court of Canada the issue of due diligence with respect to automatic penalties under the ETA upon being assessed for additional net tax. ...

Translation certified true on this 30 th day of March, 2005. Colette Dupuis-Beaulne, Translator Docket: 98-763(UI) BETWEEN: FRANCINE PROVOST, Appellant and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, Respondent. ... They are: (a)         the existence of a common mind which directs the bargaining for both parties to the transaction,                      (b)         parties to a transaction acting in concert without separate interests, and             (c)         " de facto " control.                     ... Translation certified true on this 30 th day of March 2005. Colette Dupuis-Beaulne, Translator [1]           Tibério's counsel admitted the assumption of fact set out at paragraph 6(a) of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, which states that Tiva was incorporated in 1988. [2]           According to the admission made by counsel for the Appellants. [3]           According to the testimony of Ms. ...

The Queen, [1980] 2 FC 269 (“ Tahsis ”), MacMillan Bloedel and Bernier. [12] Steve Coughlan, Canadian Law Dictionary, 7 th ed. ... (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2016) (“Sullivan”) at page 43. [33] [1957] S.C.R. 167 (“ Consolidated Glass ”). [34] [1968] 2 Ex CR 44, [1968] CTC 65, 68 DTC 5045 (“ D.W.S. ... Minister of National Revenue, [1955] S.C.R. 745 (“ Eli Lilly ”), Tip Top Tailors Ltd. v. ...

Canada, 2005 SCC 54 [see par 10] to determine, namely whether there was an abuse of a particular provision of the Act. ... Clarke   Firm: QED Tax Law Corporation For the Respondent: Nathalie G. Drouin Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada     ...

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). ... Canada, 2005 SCC 54, at para. 10). A. Text [26] The definition of UCC in subsection 13(21) of the Act provides that E is “the total depreciation allowed to the taxpayer for property of the class before that time”. ...

The Appellant did not have unreported income; and 2.   The Appellant is not liable for penalties under subsection 163(2) of the Act.   ... Tong’s credibility. [73]   However, on closer examination of the evidence, it is clear this is not correct. [43] In each of 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, Mrs. ... Canada 2005 FCA 2007. ...

“Patrick Boyle” Boyle J.   Citation: 2015 TCC 215 Date: 20150831 Docket: 2013-1257(IT)G BETWEEN: DINO AGOSTINI, Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent.   ... Her testimony was quite clear: there was no such safe. [1] [16]         Mr. ... While he claims to have had up to $140,000 in cash saved in his safe, he claims to have used it to spend significantly more, including in 2002 a $95,000 down payment on their triplex, a $9,000 replacement roof for it, and his $52,000 F350 pickup truck which he claims to have purchased for cash in 2005 (though no written record relating to his truck was offered into evidence). ...