Search - 2005年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

On April 28, 2006, their family trusts sold all the shares of RJCG to the preferred shareholder of Gestion Lagarde (“Aviva,” which was a financial institution and, in turn, was owned by a non-resident parent) and a subsidiary of Aviva, pursuant to the exercise by Aviva of an option on those shares which (leaving aside some documentary deficiencies) had been granted to it by the taxpayers in December 2005. In April 2002, Aviva had been granted an option, pursuant to the shareholders’ agreement for Gestion Lagarde, to subscribe at any time after May 1, 2005 for such number of common shares of Gestion Lagarde as would result in it holding 66.3% of the class. ... In finding that s. 148 was not breached by the 2002 option, so that it was valid, Rip J stated (at paras. 48, 50): [N]either Aviva nor an assignee "held" or owned shares of Gestion Lagarde or RJCG before April 28, 2006. … Until such time as the contemplated transaction closed, it is arguable that Aviva could have carved up its rights to acquire the shares among other persons so that, at closing, it would acquire not more than 20 per cent of the target company. ...

The Queen, 2014 DTC 1216 [at at 3872], 2014 TCC 309-- summary under Stare Decisis Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Stare Decisis weight of obiter depends on fulness of argument Before finding that the taxpayers' argument was contradicted by the "authoritative obiter " in S.T.B. that s. 245(7) applied to third parties only, Hogan J paraphrased (at para. 28) R. v. Henry, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 609 for the proposition "that obiter dicta move along a continuum and diminish in weight the further they stray from the dispositive point of judicial opinion," and noted (at para. 29) that in S.T.B. ...

The Queen, 2014 DTC 1216 [at at 3872], 2014 TCC 309-- summary under Stare Decisis Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Stare Decisis weight of obiter depends on fullness of argument Before finding that the taxpayers' argument was contradicted by the "authoritative obiter " in S.T.B. that s. 245(7) applied to third parties only, Hogan J paraphrased (at para. 28) R. v. Henry, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 609 for the proposition "that obiter dicta move along a continuum and diminish in weight the further they stray from the dispositive point of judicial opinion," and noted (at para. 29) that in S.T.B. ...

. … [T]he parties are not the same in the Tax Court Appeal and the U.S. ... The issue in the Tax Court Appeal is the amount of Silver Wheaton’s taxable income under the Canadian Income Tax Act for each year from 2005 to 2010. ... Class Action concerns a breach of U.S. securities law that allegedly occurred beginning in February of 2011. … [T]he Non-parties have not been able to refer to a specific document in this appeal whose disclosure would be in the public interest. … [T]he Non-parties’ motion is a fishing expedition…. ...

The Queen, 2019 TCC 92-- summary under Subsection 147(3) Summary Under Tax Topics- Other Legislation/Constitution- Federal- Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure)- Section 147- Subsection 147(3) legal costs were increased by allegation of sham; last minute offer not impacting tax irrelevant Owen J made a lump sum award for legal fees of Osler borne by Cameco in its successful appeal of transfer-pricing adjustments for its 2003, 2005 and 2006 taxation years (being only three of the assessed years) of $10.25M, which represented about 35% of the legal fees charged for those years. Factors mentioned by Owen J included: Settlement offers made by Cameco (one less than 30 days before trial, and one after trial) did not have any real bearing given their “ de minimis nature” (i.e., although Cameo offered “$32 million of additional taxable earnings in 2006 … no additional tax in any of the three years under appeal” was offered (paras. 20-21). ...

Prior to a settlement in 2005 following an audit of losses that had been incurred by a limited partnership (“Grosvenor”) of which 661 was a partner, the taxable income of 661 for 2000 had been reduced to nil as a result of non-capital loss carrybacks from 2001 and 2002. However, following the Grosvenor settlement, 661’s Grosvenor losses for 2001 were substantially reduced (so that in a January 14, 2005 reassessment, 661’s taxable income was correspondingly increased), and this increase in taxable income was only partially offset through a requested carryback of a 2003 non-capital loss reflected in a November 20, 2008 reassessment. ... St-Hilaire J dismissed the appeal, commenting (at para 83): …[T]he Court is left with legislation that does not satisfactorily address the circumstances and an administrative policy that seemingly seeks to address the lacunae but for which there is no legislative authority. … ...

The Queen, 2020 TCC 44-- summary under Subsection 58(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Other Legislation/Constitution- Federal- Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure)- Section 58- Subsection 58(1) refusal of request for Rule 58 determination that reporting gains as on capital rather than income account was not a “misrepresentation” The Minister reassessed most of the taxation years for 2005 to 2014 taxation years, with only the 2012 to 2014 taxation years being within the normal reassessment period. ... In dismissing the motion, she stated (at paras. 24-25, 28): I cannot agree with the Appellant’s proposition … that a question of income versus capital necessarily amounts to a difference in opinion… [T]he factual circumstances of the appeal will determine whether the issue of income versus capital is purely a difference of opinion or not. … The question of whether a misrepresentation under subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i) contemplates fact only or mixed-law-and-fact, should properly remain with the trier of fact to determine in conjunction with the related substantive issues. …. In the present case, documents have not yet been exchanged nor have discoveries been conducted. … While the mechanics of the transactions may not be in dispute, the factual circumstances have yet to be determined for the purposes of confirming or rebutting the Minister’s assumptions. ...

The Queen, 2008 TCC 185 (Informal Procedure)-- summary under Subparagraph (a)(iii) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 256.2- Subsection 256.2(1)- Qualifying Residential Unit- Paragraph (a)- Subparagraph (a)(iii) purchaser was required only to satisfy reasonable expectation rather than actual use test The appellant took possession in December 2004 of a newly-constructed condo unit and closed its acquistion on March 1, 2005 (when condominium registration was also received). Due to a change in plans, he did not move into the unit and leased it to CIBC World Markets ("CIBC") for a lease term of 11 months ending on December 28, 2005. ... (a)(iii) refers to the time that the unit is acquired (in this case, March 1, 2005) (para. 29); at that time, the appellant reasonably expected that the tenant's occupancy would continue for several years under a lease renewal (para. 31); and "no unit will be able to satisfy the actual use test at the relevant time...unless the actual use is a very short period of time" (para. 24) so that, generally, as was the case here, only the expected rather than acual use test should be applied (para. 32). ...

") – earned management fees and rental fees from W.L. In 2003, the taxpayer lent $3.5 million to an arm's length supplier of specially prepared boards ("Interact") secured by patents held by Interact's principal ("Cable"). Following the bankruptcy of Interact and Cable earlier in 2005, the trustee in bankruptcy for Cable released the patents to the taxpayer "subject to ultimate accounting for the proceeds of disposition"- by which the trustee apparently meant to address the unlikely event that the taxpayer could sell the patents for more than the amount it was owed by Interact. ... The taxpayer had obtained the incidents of title when the trustee released the patents in 2005: the taxpayer possessed the physical patent documents, the trustee confirmed to the patent agent that the taxpayer would henceforth be instructing the patent agent and did not thereafter interfere with the taxpayer's use and enjoyment, the taxpayer assumed the costs of ownership and defended the patent ownership rights against the claims of Cable's common law spouse (who claimed a constructive trust in her favour). ...

") – earned management fees and rental fees from W.L. In 2003, the taxpayer lent $3.5 million to an arm's length supplier of specially prepared boards ("Interact") secured by patents held by Interact's principal ("Cable"). Following the bankruptcy of Interact and Cable earlier in 2005, the trustee in bankruptcy for Cable released the patents to the taxpayer "subject to ultimate accounting for the proceeds of disposition"- by which the trustee apparently meant to address the unlikely event that the taxpayer could sell the patents for more than the amount it was owed by Interact. ... The taxpayer had obtained the incidents of title when the trustee released the patents in 2005: the taxpayer possessed the physical patent documents, the trustee confirmed to the patent agent that the taxpayer would henceforth be instructing the patent agent and did not thereafter interfere with the taxpayer's use and enjoyment, the taxpayer assumed the costs of ownership and defended the patent ownership rights against the claims of Cable's common law spouse (who claimed a constructive trust in her favour). ...