Search - considered

In finding that Harvard Properties and NH Properties, were not dealing with each other at arm’s length, Boyle J stated (at paras. 155, 161): Given the agreement for Abacus to pay a premium to the co-owners to purchase the co-owners’ interests … the steps and the amounts in the series of transactions cannot be considered to reflect ordinary commercial dealings. … Harvard Properties, Abacus and NH Properties clearly acted together to dictate [the] Newcos’ actions from their inception and throughout the closing of this series of transactions. ...

Furthermore, Boyle J considered that the reasonable way in the circumstances to deny the tax benefit was to treat s. 160 as applying to the extent of the shortfall in consideration given on the transfer (para. 208). ...

In finding that that was the situation here, he indicated that: “the trustee's distributions had no impact on the rights of a beneficiary of the Trust who had or had not received a distribution” (para. 65); and although the taxpayer “had a right under the Trust to be considered by the trustee for any distribution on the same basis as the other beneficiaries … there is no reason to believe that anyone would have paid even a very small amount for [this right]” (para. 67); In also rejecting the taxpayer’s submission that the deeming by s. 107(2) of proceeds for the distributed property equal to its cost amount constituted the receipt of consideration for s. 160(1)(e) purposes, Gagnon J stated (at para. 79) that “[w]hen there is a transfer of value between two patrimonies, there is a transfer within the meaning of subsection 160(1)” and it was “hardly conceivable that the tax treatment of a transaction could interact with the notion of transfer contemplated by Parliament for the purposes of subsection 160(1)” (para. 80). ...

Furthermore, in finding that there was no carelessness or neglect in their position that they carried on a business, he stated (at para. 90): [T]he Appellants thoughtfully and carefully considered the nature of the Dog Activities, and, in consultation with their accountants, concluded that those activities were a business. ...

In denying the applications, the CRA delegate considered that a high degree of care and diligence was to be expected given the sophistication of the Bank and EY, and that this had not been demonstrated in the circumstances. ...

The Queen, 2021 TCC 47-- summary under Paragraph 142(2)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 142- Subsection 142(2)- Paragraph 142(2)(a) trucking company was considered to make an immediate on-supply of fuel to truckers in the country where it acquired fuel at service stations The taxpayer, which used its trucks, and independent contractors as drivers (a.k.a., contract truckers), to transport freight in Canada and the U.S, paid the "trip fee" specified in its agreements with the drivers for each trip. ...

CRA considered that the substantial completion date was January 13, 2020, being the date that the local town conducted its final inspection of the property. ...

In determining whether there was substantial renovation of the Craven Road property and of the second property (the “Fourth Street” property) both parties accepted the use of the second of the three methods referred to in GST/HST Technical Information Bulletin B-092 for measuring whether a renovation had been “substantial” (with 90% appearing in B-092 as the minimum percentage for a property to be considered as having been “substantially renovated”). ...

In Montour, Bourque, J. had found that s. 42 was constitutionally inapplicable to the Mohawks in that case, who had also failed to pay duty on tobacco products: by reason of the circumstances of the case before her warranting a departure from the framework developed in Van der Peet ([1996] 2 S.C.R. 507) in respect of Aboriginal rights- so that the applicants' participation in the tobacco trade should be considered protected by an Aboriginal right to freely trade; and by reason of an inferred meta-treaty (the Covenant Chain) having been unjustifiably breached by s. 42 because the Crown had not discussed tobacco-related issues with the Mohawks prior to the passage of the Excise Act. ...

., after referring to the Minister's argument that Article 13(5) did not exempt the gain because the taxpayer was "not resident in Austria, and also because the tax in issue is not imposed on the basis that [he] is the alienator of the shares, but by the operation of the attribution rule in subsection 75(2)," stated (at para. 64): Justice Miller rejected that argument because he considered it inconsistent with the language of Article XIII (5), and the apparent premise for another provision of the Canada-Austria Income Tax Convention, Article XXXVIII (2). ...