Search - 2005年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

PELLETIER J.A.                         MALONE J.A.   BETWEEN: ROD HORSNALL Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent                 Heard at Regina, Saskatchewan, on November 20, 2006. ...     [7]                The appellant shall be entitled to the costs of the appeal.     “Gilles Létourneau” J.A.     FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL   NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD       DOCKET:                                                                A-474-05     (APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE TAX COURT OF CANADA DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, DOCKET NO. 2004-4263 (GST) I)     STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                ROD HORSNALL v. ...

  [16]            On October 25, 2006, the Minister made an ex parte application to the Federal Court (T-1868-06) under subsection 231.2(3) of the Income Tax Act, seeking an order authorizing the Minister to require eBay Canada to provide:... the following information and documents for any person (including individual, corporation and joint venture) who qualified for the PowerSeller status under eBay’s PowerSeller program in Canada at any time during the two calendar years 2004 and 2005: (a)     account information – full name, userid, mailing address, billing address, telephone number, fax number and email address, and (b)    merchandise sales information – gross annual sales.   Using the terminology of subsection 231.2(3), eBay Canada is the “third party” and the persons who qualified for PowerSeller status under the PowerSeller program in Canada in 2004 and 2005 are the “unnamed persons” ... It would appear that the Minister intends to use the information to retrieve and review the 2004 and 2005 income tax returns of the PowerSellers whose identities are disclosed. ...

Appellant and MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent             Hearing held at Montréal, Q uebec, on September 12, 2006. ... Harvey, BCL, LLB   FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL   SOLICITORS OF RECORD     DOCKET:                                           A-485-05   AppeAl FROM JUDGMENT DATED septembeR 15, 2005, BY THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE Louise Lamarre-Proulx OF THE TAX COURT OF Canada IN DOCKET BEARING NUMBER 2004-4725(EI).     ... Appellant and MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent     JUDGMENT                 The appeal is dismissed with costs.     ...

    [11]            We agree with this conclusion.   [12]            For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.     ... DUSSAULT OF THE TAX COURT OF CANADA DATED MAY 20, 2005.   STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                               CARLO VENNERI v. ... Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT           ...

However, this result reflects the fact that large losses sustained in the 2003 and 2004 taxation years were carried back to the 2001 and 2002 taxation years, and losses in the 2006 and 2007 years were applied to the 2005 taxation year. Had the appellant filed its tax returns when required in 2001, 2002, and 2005 it would have had taxable income in those years and been required to pay tax thereon. ... The result of the late filing therefore benefited the appellant in that it was able to claim the loss carry back in the late filed 2001, 2002 and 2005 tax returns ...

EVANS J.A.                         MALONE J.A.   BETWEEN: JEROME DOWNEY Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent       Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on October 26, 2006. ... The Queen, 2005 TCC 810.   [2]                The Minister’s reassessment assumed that the sale of land by Mr Downey to a company, in which he and two others were equal shareholders, was not in fact at arm’s length, and that the fair market value of the land was only $150,000, not the $420,000 for which Mr Downey had agreed to sell it to the company. ...   [1]                For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed.     ...

    [24]            At the conclusion of the correspondence, Mr. Ross was advised that if he had any additional information relevant to this matter, or if he wished to make any further representations to RPD, that it was open for him to do so prior to January 7, 2005. ...   [30]            Mr. Jenkins replied to these letters with a final letter on January 5, 2005. ... Canada (Minister of National Revenue – M.N.R.), [2005] F.C.J. No. 1551, 2005 FCA 304. ...

Appellant and   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on January 8, 2008)   DESJARDINS J.A. [1]                We are all of the view that the Tax Court Judge made no reviewable error in concluding that the appellant had no standing to seek a rebate under section 261 of the Excise Tax Act (the Act) (see West Windsor Urgent Care Inc. v. the Queen, [2005] TCC 405, Hershfield J., at para. 65 ... Justice Hershfield dated November 16, 2005 in Windsor, Ontario, Tax Court File NO. 2002-2851 (GST)G.)   ... APPEARANCES:   Raymond Colautti   FOR THE APPELLANT   Michael  Ezri FOR THE RESPONDENT     SOLICITORS OF RECORD:   Raphael Partners LLP Windsor, Ontario     FOR THE APPELLANT   John H. ...

The Tax Court Judge held that Deborah Ann Nedelcu (the appellant) was not entitled to child tax benefits totaling $23,406 which she claimed for 2003, 2004 and 2005 because she did not reside in Canada during those years ...   [9]                By notice issued in September of 2006, the Minister of National Revenue (the Minister) advised the appellant that she was no longer considered to be a resident of Canada beginning with year 2003 and throughout 2005, and that as a result she was not entitled to the child tax credits claimed during this period ... The issue to be decided was therefore whether the appellant resided in Canada during 2003, 2004 and 2005. ...

  [3]                On or about January 26, 2005, the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) agreed that, subject to the relevant invoices being produced, the appellant could deduct the amount of $48,319 paid with respect to the proceeding against the hospital on the basis that this expenditure served to establish his right to a salary pursuant to paragraph 8(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”). ...   [6]                By way of a separate decision as to costs rendered January 4, 2006, the Tax Court Judge held that the appellant was liable to 50 percent of the costs up to January 26, 2005 and all costs thereafter. ...   [18]            With respect to the costs incurred after January 26, 2005, the Tax Court Judge followed the rule that costs generally follow the event. ...