Search - connection

.$2.9 billion made to settle actions against it in connection with the Enron bankruptcy included whether the settlement amount should have been reimbursed to it by subsidiaries whose conduct may have been the primary basis for the actions. ... Litigation privilege was not available for various documents prepared in connection with the Enron litigation given that (para. 178): the parties are not the same as the Enron litigation, and the cause of action is completely different. ...

After noting (at para. 20) the Vavilov test that the administrative decision under review must “exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency” and (at para. 39) the Saipem test of “a rational connection … between the information sought and the administration and enforcement of the ITA,” Fothergill J stated (at para 43, 45-47): No explanation has been provided for the absence of any time limits on the information sought in the Requirement, although the previous requests were all restricted to the taxation years under audit. ... He ordered that the Requirement be varied to reference nine limiting factors that had been set out in the most recent CRA audit request for such agreements, and limited the Requirement to the 21 named pharmaceutical and life sciences companies, after having noted that this would “not foreclose further requests or requirements for information as the audit continues” and that the “sole constraint placed on the Minister is that a rational connection must exist between the information sought and the administration and enforcement of the ITA” (para. 51). ...

. … [T]he broad wording of paragraph 6(1)(a) requires only the slightest connection between the benefit and employment. That does not preclude benefits received where, in addition to the required connection between benefit and employment, there also may have been considerations extraneous to employment. ...

This did “ not depart from accepted usage such that the bargain struck in the Treaty could be upheld only if Luxembourg residents claiming benefits have ‘sufficient substantive economic connections’ to their country of residence” (para. 61). This conclusion was further reinforced by Art. 28(3) which (in contrast to the “look-through” approach in other contemporaneous treaties negotiated by Canada), denied Treaty benefits for “holding companies with minimal economic connections to Luxembourg” only in the case of some such holding companies (para. 65, see also para. 66). ...

Rowe and Martin, JJ, jointly speaking for the minority of three, accepted (at para. 151) that, under the Treaty, the “ allocation of taxing powers follows the theory of ‘economic allegiance’," under which “taxes should be paid on income where it has the strongest ‘economic interests’ or ties, either in the state of residence or the source state,” – whereas here there was an abuse of that Treaty object since the “evidence demonstrate[d] that Alta Luxembourg had no genuine economic connections with Luxembourg as it was a mere conduit interposed in Luxembourg for residents of third-party states to avail themselves of a tax exemption under the Treaty” (para. 177). ... Indeed, Canada’s acceptance of the use of conduit corporations was implicit in Art. 28(3), which provided a very narrow exception to Treaty residence status for only certain, rather than all, types of “holding companies with minimal economic connections to Luxembourg” (para. 65, see also para. 66). ...

Canada (National Revenue), 2022 FC 29-- summary under Subsection 231.1(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 231.1- Subsection 231.1(1) requested information regarding a Caymans subsidiary had a rational connection to an audit of the taxpayers CRA, which had been auditing the taxpayers-Dr. ... After noting that the reasonableness of the letters turned on a test of whether there may be considered to be “a rational connection … between the information sought and the administration and enforcement of the ITA” (para. 23), Fothergill J stated (at paras. 27, 37): [A]ssessing or re-assessing a taxpayer, even for years that fall outside the normal reassessment period, in circumstances where the taxpayer may have made any misrepresentation attributable to neglect, carelessness or willful default … is a purpose for which a request for information may be made under s 231.1 …. … I am satisfied that Dr. ...