Search - considered

., 94 DTC 6125, [1994] 1 CTC 244 (FCA)-- summary under Certainty Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Certainty preferred interpretation should meet a minimum level of cetainty In finding that a federal sales tax refund should not be considered to have been receivable by the taxpayer until the Minister had given some public irrevocable indication thereof, Hugessen J.A. stated (p. 6128): "The decision creates rights and starts time running and it is as much in the public interest as in that of those immediately concerned that there be a basic minimum of certainty as to when it is made and what it is. ...

Miller J: “had concluded that a reassessment will be considered valid if the intention of the Minister at the time of [its] making…was to pursue verification;” and had found that that “there is no law…to the effect that a protective assessment is invalid if issued for the sole purpose of leaving the door open to conduct or continue an audit” (- and she went on to indicate that Karda was similiar); and noted (at para. 129) that it was necessary to issue the reassessments in order to implement the accord with RTA respecting its directly incurred SR&ED expenditures. ... Miller J. … explained that in the Anchor Pointe decision the Federal Court of Appeal considered the correctness of the assessment as the product of the examination, and not the validity of the assessment as the process. … Accordingly, the reassessments were valid. ...

In also rejecting Elfe’s submission that the Court should simply annul the interest itself, he noted that the ARQ had not even considered whether it was appropriate in the particular circumstances to annul interest below the 4% level, and had not been informed of the MNP advice, and stated (at para. 40): Given the breadth of issues that could be considered by the Agency and its jurisdiction in this matter, the Court will not exercise the discretionary power of the Agency. ...

She then found (also at para. 49) that although “The development agreement undoubtedly does constitute such an arrangement,” the Tax Court had gone beyond this and thus committed two errors (paras 50 and 51): … [First] the Tax Court went well beyond relying on the terms of the development agreement in considering what circumstances gave rise to de facto control and instead considered such issues as ADC’s financial position, the other shareholders’ dependence on the viability of ADC and representations made by Mr. ... She stated (at paras 58 and 59): …Under paragraph 251(1)(c) of the ITA, the requisite inquiry is entirely factual, and the ability to set the terms of the supply agreement must accordingly be considered in context. … [I]n light of ADC’s near-total economic dependence on Seawind Corp., the fact that the owner of the latter company dictated (and was able to dictate) the terms of the relationship between the two companies is a very relevant factor in determining whether the two were dealing at arm’s length. ...

He would have been considered to have a services permanent establishment in Canada under the Canada-U.S. ... After noting (at para. 19) that “Neither party argued that Wolfbend LLC was not carrying on any business,” Webb JA stated (at para. 22): [I]f, for Canadian tax purposes, any enterprise being carried on by Wolfbend LLC is considered to only be carried on by it (and, therefore, any revenue that it generates from carrying on that enterprise is treated as its revenue from that enterprise), any enterprise of Wolfbend LLC, as a separate person for Canadian tax purposes, would not be the enterprise of Lawrence Wolf. ...

. … … I would have considered …relevant … the jurisdiction in which the owners of the fleets were based; the location where regular maintenance on the vehicles was conducted; the jurisdiction in which the drivers were licensed; and the location where the vehicles were kept when not in use. I may also have considered the reason why the vehicles left Canada. … Words and Phrases risks ordinarily situated ...

The trust’s request for such an amended election was rejected by decisions made in the second-level CRA review (conducted by the Assistant Director responsible for the CRA auditor who had proposed the reassessments) on the ground (supported by the “Litt Memo prepared by an auditor) that he considered the “request to be retroactive tax planning,” which was not permissible having regard to the jurisprudence (Canada Life) on rectification. ... The Trusts are not seeking a tax advantage they had not considered at the time…. … The Minister’s delegate … imports equitable requirements specific to rectification and rescission without acknowledging any difference in the remedies sought. … They requested only the amendment of the Original Elections, as contemplated in subsection 85(7.1). ...

Pizzitelli J considered this discount to be eminently fair to the taxpayers given his finding that, on the valuation date (April 1, 2006), the prospects for a successful IPO were high (and of the founders requiring the taxpayers to sell their shares back at the formula price, quite fanciful). ... Pizzitelli J then stated (at para. 104): [T]he Appellants did not seek an independent valuation and cannot be said to have thoughtfully, deliberately and carefully considered whether the proposed IPO would affect the share price. ...

(the taxpayer in this case) or Fyled who was liable for UK corporate income tax on the superprofits allocated to Cayman LP turned, in part, on whether Fyled was to be considered as a member of the UK LLP. In finding that Fyled could not be considered to be carrying on business in common with the named partners of the UK LLP and, thus, was not a member of the UK LLP, Whipple LJ adverted to the decision of Park J in Major v Brodie [1998] STC 49, finding that two individuals (Mr and Mrs Brodie) in partnership who entered into a partnership agreement with a third person, had thereby formed a partnership of three person (known as W Murdoch and Sons). ...

In the alternative, Smith J considered whether GAAR should apply even if the units in the Income Funds were qualified investments. ... After finding that the Minister’s assessment of the taxpayer respecting the RRSP income pursuant to s. 56(2) was unsupported by the wording of that provision, Smith J went on to indicate that he would have upheld the reassessments of the taxpayer in those amounts on the basis of the GAAR, but for this resulting “in a duplication of the tax which the Minister has also sought to impose on the RRSP Trust pursuant to subsection 146(10.1)” – which could not “be considered ‘reasonable in the circumstances’ as contemplated in subsection 245(5)” (para. 623). ...