Search - 2005年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

The Applicant is seeking cancellation of penalties and interests levied by Canada Revenue Agency [CRA] for the taxation periods ending December 31, 2004, December 31, 2005, December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2007 [the Periods]. ...   [12]            In considering these factors, it is important to note that any applicant is responsible to file his or her return on time, and that any errors attributable to third parties are not considered extraordinary circumstances (Babin v Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2005 FC 972 at paras 19-20; Quastel v Canada (Revenue Agency), 2011 FC 143; Boonstra v Canada (Attorney General), 2006 FC 1196 at paras 17, 22) ... Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada  Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT                   ...

Justice Harrington   BETWEEN:   CHARLES DESJARDINS       Applicant   and       THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE       Respondent           REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER   [1]                Mr. ... Justice von Finkenstein in Dick v Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2005 FC 560, 2005 DTC 5241, in which he held under the patently unreasonable standard of review current at the time, that the Agency did not take into account that the penalty and interest owing far exceeded the tax owing, and that Mr. ... DATED:                                              DECEMBER 16, 2011       APPEARANCES:   Richard B. ...

In 2005, he asked the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to waive interest and penalties he owed in respect of previous taxation years because of financial hardship. ... O’Reilly” Judge         Annex Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5 th Supp.)     ... FOR THE RESPONDENT         ...

McConnell, 2009 FC 851                          Federal Court                 Cour fédérale Date: 20090827 Docket: T-985-08 Citation: 2009 FC 851 Ottawa, Ontario, August 27, 2009 PRESENT:     The Honourable Mr. ... No. 1005) and leave was not granted to appeal before the Federal Court of Appeal in 2005. ...   [8]                On June 8, 2005, the Commission dismissed Ms. McConnell’s complaints on the basis that they were out of time pursuant to paragraph 41(1)(e) of the Act. ...

I.                    Alleged Processing Errors by CRA [4]                With respect to the first issue concerning the alleged processing errors and mistakes in assessing the Applicant’s 2005 income tax return, the record does not support the factual allegations advanced by the Applicant that form the basis of this submission. [5]                The Applicant alleges that he first filed his 2005 return with his 2004 return in 2006. There is no evidence on the record to support this claim, and indeed the subsequent evidence indicates that he acknowledged that he had not filed his 2005 return as claimed. [6]                The Applicant similarly submitted that he filed his 2005 return in late 2006/2007, after the CRA notified him on three occasions that his 2005 return was outstanding. ... Muir’s 2004 return, not as a return for 2005. [My emphasis.] [7]                As a result of submitting this information as a T1 adjustment to his 2004 return, the CRA reassessed his 2004 return. ...

I.   Background [6]   In 2005, the Applicant started to sell used boats. ... This case relates to the consequences that have flowed from that omission. [7]   The Applicant filed a personal income tax return for 2005, but he says that the accountant he hired to complete and file his 2005 income tax return for the business did not file it in a timely way. ... In this case, the evidence shows that the Applicant carried on a significant amount of business activity in 2005 – his business records indicated total sales of approximately $586,000 during the year. ...

Justice Barnes     BETWEEN:   SYVERT MYTTING       Applicant   and       MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE       Respondent                REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT   [1]                This is an application for judicial review by Syvert Mytting challenging a decision by the Minister of National Revenue (Minister) denying Mr. ...   [8]                This situation is indistinguishable from that described by the Federal Court of Appeal in Comeau v Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2005 FCA 271 at para 20, [2005] FCJ no 1334 (QL) [Comeau]: As to the third segment, from the assessment of June 1997 to the reassessment of September 11, 2000, the Agency justified its refusal to cancel the interest by the fact that, on June 26, 1997, Mr. ... DATED:                                              April 23, 2012     APPEARANCES:   Michael J Welters   FOR THE APPLICANT   Nadine Taylor   FOR THE RESPONDENT     SOLICITORS OF RECORD:   Bull Housser & Tupper Barristers and Solicitors Vancouver, BC   FOR THE APPLICANT   Myles J. ...

Canada (Attorney General), 2006 FC 490       Date: 20060413 Docket: T-100-06 Citation: 2006 FC 490 Montréal, Quebec, April 13, 2006 Present: Richard Morneau, Prothonotary   BETWEEN: FATEH KAMEL Applicant   and   ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent       REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER   [1] This is a motion by the applicant under sections 317 and 318 of the Federal Courts Rules (the Rules) to have the federal board, commission or other tribunal at issue, namely Passport Canada, send him the entire file regarding him that Passport Canada has in its possession. [2] This is a motion in an application for judicial review by the applicant on January 19, 2006, against a decision by Passport Canada dated December 14, 2005, denying the passport application submitted by the applicant on June 13, 2005. [3] In its letter dated December 14, 2005, Passport Canada informed the applicant that Affairs in the interest of national security his passport application had been denied by the Minister of Foreign. ...   [15] Even though the Federal Court of Appeal in M cFadyen v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 360, November 2, 2005, acknowledges that when an application for judicial review raises issues of procedural fairness and excess of jurisdiction, additional evidence regarding strictly what was before the decision-maker may be admitted by affidavit before this Court (see also Tremblay v. ... Harvey, BCL, LLB       SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 FEDERAL COURT   SOLICITORS OF RECORD     DOCKET:   T-100-06   STYLE OF CAUSE:   FATEH KAMEL     and   ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA         PLACE OF HEARING:   Montréal, Quebec   DATE OF HEARING:   April 10, 2006   REASONS FOR ORDER:   PROTHONOTARY MORNEAU   DATED:   April 13, 2006     APPEARED:   Johanne Doyon   FOR THE APPLICANT   Nathalie Benoit   FOR THE RESPONDENT     SOLICITORS OF RECORD:   Doyon & Associés   FOR THE APPLICANT Montréal, Quebec   John H. ...

According to the respondent, the CRA never received an answer from the applicants to the June 22, 2005 letter. According to the applicants, they never received the June 22, 2005 letter ... According to the CRA, the applicants chose to wait for the outcome of the Lassonde case at the Federal Court of Appeal, which was issued in 2005 and was not in their favour (Lassonde v Canada, 2005 FCA 323, [2005] FCJ No 1682 (QL)) ...

    [9]                According to the non-contradicted affidavit of Mrs. ...     [13]            At its February 1, 2008 meeting FTEAC considered Kemp’s request.  ... Canada (Minister of Health), 2005 FC 1396.   [19]            It is true, as noted by the Applicant, that Kemp is somewhat more directly affected by the impugned decision of the Minister than were the applicants in the above-mentioned cases.  ...