Search - convention

Le demandeur allègue qu’à chaque occasion une nouvelle convention est intervenue entre les parties pour retenir les services de Préville. ... Les minutes du Livre de Henderson rapportent que cette convention a été revisée le 28 juin 1961 limitant ladite commission à 2 /2% “sur toutes les ventes faites par Henderson Furniture Limited à une montant maximum de $13,000 par année.” ...

Raymond Robitaille, un résident des Etats- Unis, n’a pas d’établissement permanent au Canada, au sens où les mots “établissement permanent” sont utilisés à l’article VIII de la Convention Canada/Etats-Unis. ... Lorsqu’une personne verse ou crédite ou est réputée avoir versé ou crédité une somme sur laquelle un impôt sur le revenu est exigible en vertu de la présente Partie, elle doit, nonobstant toute disposition contraire d’une convention ou d’une loi, en déduire ou en retenir le montant de l’impôt et le remettre immédiatement au receveur général du Canada au nom de la personne non résidante, à valoir sur l’impôt, et l’accompagner d’un état en la forme prescrite. ...

Le fondateur de l'entreprise, Raymond Blain, a voulu intéresser ses enfants aux affaires de la quincaillerie et, en 1994, une convention entre actionnaires par laquelle les actions de l'appelante étaient distribuées, a été signée par Raymond Blain, le père, Pauline Blain, la mère, et leurs enfants Serge Blain et André Blain (pièce I-1). [10]          Raymond Blain est le seul actionnaire à avoir investi de l'argent dans l'appelante. ... Il a expliqué les termes de la convention entre actionnaire en ces termes: « les enfants étaient intéressés à gérer l'entreprise ». [14]          Serge Blain était le gérant de la quincaillerie alors qu'André s'occupait du personnel. ...

      [15]   In the present case, this Court was of the view that the appellant, who is a reputable tax expert, raised new issues of public interest as regards the interpretation of an international tax convention and the right to access the information obtained and exchanged pursuant to that Convention: see paragraph 44 of the decision. ...

He said that the evidence respecting what happened at conventions, in respect of which the Appellants had deducted expenses, was vague. ... That section reads as follows: In computing income, no deduction shall be made in respect of an outlay or expense in respect of which any amount is otherwise deductible under this Act except to the extent that the outlay or expense was reasonable in the circumstances. [22] Relevant figures, taken from the statement of business activities in Renald's 1994 income tax return are: Net sales income $35,932 Bonuses earned and miscellaneous sales and rebates $12,249 Gross income $48,182 [23] The expenses are: Advertising, promotion and discounts $648 Bad debts $215 Business tax, fees, licences dues, memberships $ 81 Delivery, freight, and express $809 Supplies $353 Interest $102 Meals and entertainment $426 Motor vehicle expenses $3,486 Office expenses $792 Legal, accounting, and other professional fees $112 Return tapes and outdated products $2,008 Salaries, wages and benefits $240 Travel $2,790 Bonuses paid out $4,710 Conventions and other functions $1,740 Total Business expenses $18,516 [24] While it may be reasonable for losses of this order to arise during the initial years of a business operation, its continuance does not seem "reasonable in the circumstances" of the Appellants' operations. ...

On April 4, 2016, the RAD dismissed the applicant’s appeal, confirming the Refugee Protection Division’s (RPD) decision that the applicant would not have status as a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under Sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA. ... The RAD’s April 4, 2016 decision [9]                The matter before our Court is the RAD’s decision dismissing the applicant’s appeal, confirming the RPD’s decision and finding that he did not have status as a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under Sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA. [10]            The RAD admitted new evidence that the applicant presumably resided in Zogota at the time of the events at the heart of his claim for refugee protection, but it considered this fact to be secondary in assessing his credibility and did not change the outcome of his claim. ...

superannuation or pension benefit  includes any amount received out of or under a superannuation or pension fund or plan (including, except for the purposes of subparagraph 56(1)(a)(i), a pooled registered pension plan) and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes any payment made to a beneficiary under the fund or plan or to an employer or former employer of the beneficiary under the fund or plan (a) in accordance with the terms of the fund or plan, (b) resulting from an amendment to or modification of the fund or plan, or (c) resulting from the termination of the fund or plan; (prestation de retraite ou de pension) [15]   The relevant provision of the Convention between Canada and Australia for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income is the following: Article 18 Pensions and Annuities 1. ... In Ruparel, benefits received by the taxpayer were included in income under section 56 of the Act. [26]   The Convention between Canada and Australia for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income (the “Treaty”) does not prohibit the taxation of the pension benefits by Canada. ...

The RPD found that the Applicants were neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection within the meaning of sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. ... Their claims were heard together, and the Principal Applicant was appointed the designated representative of Viktoria. [11]   The RPD determined that there was no nexus to a Convention ground under section 96 of the IRPA, and therefore the Applicants’ claims were considered under section 97. ...

In addition to losing friends, his employment and his access to housing were affected as a result of his marriage. [8]   The RPD finds that the Applicants have not satisfied the burden of establishing a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or that they would be personally subjected, on a balance of probabilities, to a danger of torture, or a risk to life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment upon return to Croatia based on the nexus of actual or perceived ethnicity. Therefore, the RPD found that the Applicants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA. [9]   The RPD considered the evidence but found that the discrimination the Applicants may have experienced from 1996 to 2011 did not amount to persecution. ...

Huang was not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection. ... Huang was not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. [53]   As a result of the various errors and lack of transparency in the reasons for the Decision, it must be set aside and returned for redetermination by a different panel. [54]   There is no serious question of general importance arising on these facts. ...