Your search
Results 19 resources
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
This article considers the appropriate forum for disputing a denied downward transfer-pricing adjustment under subsection 247(10) of the Income Tax Act ("the ITA"). It begins by describing various scenarios in which a request for a downward transfer-pricing adjustment may arise, examines the delegation to officials at the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) of the authority to grant the adjustment, and outlines the CRA's administrative practice on when to grant such adjustments. It then explores whether the Federal Court or the Tax Court of Canada is the appropriate forum to adjudicate a denied downward transfer-pricing adjustment. For disputes under the ITA, the division of jurisdiction between the two courts is generally well defined. The Tax Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine the correctness of an assessment whereas the Federal Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions of the minister of national revenue or officials at the CRA to whom the minister's powers have been delegated. This jurisdictional divide is less clear for disputes in respect of a denied downward transfer-pricing adjustment. Subsection 247(10) is the only provision in the ITA under which the correct determination of a taxpayer's income is subject to ministerial discretion. The exercise of ministerial discretion suggests that the appropriate forum to dispute a denied transfer-pricing adjustment is the Federal Court. However, subsection 247(11) specifies that the mechanisms for resolving all transfer-pricing disputes under part XVI.1 of the ITA are through the objection and appeal process in part I of the ITA. The language of subsection 247(11), coupled with its legislative history, the restrictions on the Federal Court's jurisdiction, and practical considerations regarding transfer-pricing disputes, all suggest that the Tax Court is the appropriate forum to consider a denied downward transfer-pricing adjustment. Historical case law from the Exchequer Court supports this conclusion. However, there are scenarios in which a denied downward transfer-pricing adjustment may not result in a notice of assessment being issued, and therefore no clear right of appeal to the Tax Court may exist. To ensure that the Tax Court has the jurisdiction to review all denied downward transfer-pricing adjustments, and not only those that result in an assessment, the authors recommend that part XVI.1 of the ITA be amended to include language requiring the minister to issue an assessment in all cases in which a downward transfer-pricing adjustment is denied.
-
Women were also more likely to have talked to somebody about their experience following an incident of unwanted behaviour or assault. * Women were more likely than men to have experienced multiple incidents in the past 12 months and to have experienced unwanted behaviour or violence while on the street versus while in another public place, such as a bar or restaurant. * Beside gender, being younger, having experienced harsh parenting, having been physically or sexually abused by an adult during childhood, and being single, never married, all play a role in experiencing gender-based violence. * One in three (32%) women and one in eight (13%) men experienced unwanted sexual behaviour in public. The victims-and even the perpetrators-may not themselves perceive the motivations for the incident as being rooted in social structures and systems, which can serve to produce and reproduce gender inequality and gendered violence across many dimensions. Because of this, asking about gender-based violence directly in a survey may not lead to accurate findings or conclusions. Previous research indicates that disabled women, Indigenous women, girls and young women, lesbian and bisexual women, and gay and bisexual men are more at risk of experiencing violence (Boyce 2016; Burczycka 2018a; Conroy 2018; Conroy and Cotter 2017; Cotter 2018; Cotter and Beaupré 2014; Ibrahim 2018; Perreault 2015; Rotenberg 2019; Rotenberg 2017; Simpson 2018). By also including questions which measure violence that meets the criminal threshold, such as physical and sexual assault, the SSPPS allows for a comparative analysis of the risk factors across the continuum of gender-based violence, while also providing more recent self-reported statistics on violent victimization.
-
Fitness to plead refers to a criminal defendant’s ability to participate at trial. The purpose of fitness-to-plead laws is to protect the rights of vulnerable individuals who are unable to defend themselves in court and to preserve natural justice in the legal system while balancing the needs to see …