Search - contravene

I paraphrase as follows the relief sought from the Federal Court: (a)     a declaration that subsections 116(1) to (5) do not apply to a disposition of taxable Canadian property if the Canada-Barbados Convention prevents Canada from taxing the resulting capital gain; (b)    in the alternative, a declaration that where such an exempt gain arises, the Minister must issue a subsection 116(2) certificate without requiring any payment because the payment contravenes the Canada-Barbados Convention; (c)     a mandatory order requiring the Minister to issue the subsection 116(2) certificate sought in this case; (d)    in the alternative, a declaration that the Minister has withheld the subsection 116(2) certificate for an improper purpose and a mandatory order that the Minister issue the certificate forthwith; (e)     in the alternative, a declaration that the Minister has delayed, unduly and for an improper purpose:                                                             (i)             delivering his decision as to whether or not to issue the certificate; and                                                           (ii)             his decision as to the applicability of Article XIV of the Canada-Barbados Convention, and a mandatory order requiring the Minister to render both decisions forthwith ...

Section 239(1)(d) does not make it an offence per se to contravene a provision of the Income Tax Act. ... It is clear from the statement of the trial judge (supra) that the conduct he was punishing through the award of costs was the course of conduct of the appellant in late-filing over the years, which course of conduct the Trial Judge had previously found did not contravene subsection 163(1). ...

In that case the Supreme Court concluded that: (a)      the Act is essentially a regulatory measure; (b)      s. 231(3) (the predecessor of s. 231.2(1)) is not criminal or quasi-criminal law; (c)      application of that subsection constitutes a seizure since it infringes the individual"s expectations of privacy; (d)      only unreasonable seizures contravene s. 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; (e)      seizure in an administrative and regulatory context must be distinguished from seizure in a criminal or quasi-criminal situation; (f)      in a taxation system based on the principle of self-reporting and self-assessment, the Minister of National Revenue has to have broad powers to audit taxpayers' returns and inspect records which may have been used to prepare those returns; (g)      the Minister of National Revenue must be able to exercise these powers whether or not he has reasonable grounds to believe that a particular taxpayer has breached the Act; (h)      s. 231(3) provides the least intrusive means by which effective monitoring of compliance with the Act can be carried out; and (i)      the taxpayer's privacy interest with regard to documents which may be relevant in income tax returns is relatively low in relation to the Minister. [4]      In our opinion, it is not a serious argument for the appellants to say that a requirement to provide documents or information, like the one at bar, infringes the constitutional provisions of ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter when that requirement is made as part of a genuine administrative investigation for the purpose of recovering money owed and with a real objective of collecting information in that connection. ...

Therefore, the relief sought would not contravene any tax policy objective.   ...

The appellant sought to amend his Statement of Claim to allege, inter alia, that the pending inquiry contravenes the Charter, is of no force and effect and that the inquiry could not continue. ...

Yet while any law that involves a so-called coercive burden on an individual's practice of their religion — which really means no more than that the law has some influence on their religious practice — may potentially fall within the ambit of paragraph 2(a), it is clear that not all such laws contravene that subsection. ... Subsection 15(2) provides that laws, pro- grams, or activities aimed at ameliorating the conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups do not contravene section 15. ... I conclude, therefore, that paragraph 118(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act does not contravene the equality provisions in subsection 15(1) either on the ground of marital status or on the ground of religion. ...

., that the taxation could contravene the Convention. I understand from the appellant’s arguments that it maintains that the Minister was responsible for ensuring that France not tax the French residents concerned in a manner contrary to the Convention, even before France had the opportunity to complete its review of the French taxpayers’ file. ... The Minister insists that the appellant does not question whether assessments on the income of French residents or on gifts, transfers and/or inheritances would contravene the Convention. ...

The onus which the income tax law places on a taxpayer to demolish the assumed facts upon which the taxation rests is not so easily discharged in most cases as to permit counsel or anyone else lightly to assume or to accept that nothing is to be found in the documents upon which an assessment is relating to any information or produce any book, record, writing, return or other document obtained by or on behalf of the Minister for the purposes of this Act, may, by notice served upon all interested parties, be appealed forthwith by the Minister or by the person against whom the order or direction is made to (a) the court of appeal of the province in which the order or direction is made, in the case of an order or direction made by a court or other tribunal established by or pursuant to the laws of the province, whether or not such court or tribunal is exercising a jurisdiction conferred by the laws of Canada; or (b) the Federal Court of Appeal, in the case of an order or direction made by a court or other tribunal established by or pursuant to the laws of Canada. (7) The court to which an appeal is taken pursuant to subsection (6) may allow the appeal and quash the order or direction appealed from or dismiss the appeal, and the rules of practice and procedure from time to time governing appeals to the courts shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to an appeal instituted pursuant to subsection (6). (8) An appeal instituted pursuant to subsection (6) shall stay the operation of the order or direction appealed from until judgment is pronounced. (9) Every one who, being an. official or authorized person, contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 months, or to both such fine and imprisonment. (10) In this section, (a) “official” means any person employed in or occupying a position of responsibility in the service of Her Majesty, or any person formerly so employed or formerly occupying a position therein; (b) “authorized person” means any person engaged or employed, or formerly engaged or employed, by or on behalf of Her Majesty to assist in carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Act; and (c) “court of appeal” has the meaning assigned by paragraphs (a) to (j) of the definition “court of appeal’’ in section 2 of the Criminal Code, based that will either aid the establishment of the taxpayer’s case or help to destroy the Minister’s assumptions and when, as here, the Minister’s assumptions have admittedly been based on the returns in question it seems to me to be manifest both that the need of the respondents for production of these returns is made out, an impression which to my mind is reinforced by my examination of the returns, and that a very strong public interest in keeping them from production would be required to outweigh the public interest in the proper administration of justice which would be served by their production. ...

Every person who contravenes any provision of this Act is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $10,000; but neither a prosecution nor the enforcement of a penalty under this Act shall suspend or affect any remedy for the recovery of any amount payable, or oil in lieu thereof, under this Act. 10. ...

In his words (reasons, paragraph 84):... accepting (the position of the Minister) would be tantamount to allowing the increase of Kruger's income for tax purposes brought about by the investment tax credits to be taxed once as regular income in its hands, and then, under the interpretation of subsection 55(2) put forward by the [Minister], allowing a corresponding amount to be taxed again in the hands of the appellant, Kruco, as a capital gain, which clearly also contravenes the spirit of the provisions at issue. ...