This case (Copthorne Holdings Ltd. v. Canada) is similar to the case being analyzed (Groupe Honco Inc. v. Her Majesty The Queen) in the fact that they both seem to be entering amalgamations in order to receive a tax free benefit. In Copthorne Holdings Ltd. v. Canada, the PUC of the previously known subsidiary became included in the PUC of the amalgamated corporation. In Groupe Honco Inc. v. Her Majesty The Queen, the capital dividend account of Old Supervac transferred to the amalgamated corporation New Supervac. In order to receive tax free benefits, the parent and subsidiary corporations in Copthorne Holdings became sister corporations prior to amalgamation in order to have a larger PUC. When shares were redeemed and a payout occurred to the non-resident shareholder, it was much larger than it would have been had the subsidiary PUC been cancelled upon amalgamation. In the Groupe Honco case, the acquirers of the Old Supervac claimed to have no knowledge of the capital dividend account. When the CDA came to light, they then tried to pay out a capital dividend from New Supervac to Groupe Honco who then paid a capital dividend to Gestion Paul Lacasse. In both situations the parties are disobeying the anti-avoidance rule.
We can use the conclusion from this case to state that the acquisition of Old Supervac’s shares and declaration of a capital dividend form a part of the same series of transactions. When deciding to elect the dividend being declared as a capital dividend,
This assignment will examine and analyse the case and its determination from the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITA) which involves Corel Corporation and the Department of National Revenue. Corel Corporation, which gets its name from Cowpland Research Laboratory, is a software company in Canada which is headquartered here in the nation’s capital. Corel specializes in graphics design, graphics software, processing graphics, and graphics programming (Corel Corporation, 2014).
Should the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) preclude this lawsuit? Why or why not? (P.166)
The plaintiff (Southern Prestige Industries, Inc.) initiated an action against the defendant (Independence Plating Corp.) in a North Carolina state court for a breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that defects in the defendant’s anodizing process caused the plaintiff’s machine parts to be rejected by Kidde Aerospace. The defendant being a New Jersey corporation and having its only office and all of its personnel situated in the state filed a motion to dismiss citing lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion and the defendant appealed arguing that there were insufficient contacts to satisfy the due process of law requirements
3. Seeing that the dispute involved the sale of land, specific performance is the proper award for damages to the injured party.
Case 9 deals with a homeowner (the principle) who lists her property for sale and enters into an agreement with an agent to facilitate a sale with a third party. Over the course of the agency agreement a prospective buyer inspected the property but didn’t make an offer before the agency agreement expired. The legal issue that arises comes after the agency agreement expires. The prospective buyer later decided to put in an offer, which was accepted, but once discovering that the agreement between the principle and agent had expired brought legal action against the agent.
Case Study of case 69 A.D.3d 413: Yun Tung Chow vs. Reckitt & Colman, Inc.
The Whatcott’s case against Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) is a one of the most recent case that emphasized on the issue of “hate speech” and “fundamental freedoms” listed in section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Whatcott’s case, four complaints were filed with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission about the four flyers published and distributed by William Whatcott. In the four flyers, William Whatcott expressed and emphasized strongly on religious convictions against homosexuals. He consistently campaigned against homosexuality, Islam and abortion in Saskatchewan and unfortunately, Whatcott included phrases such as “Keep Homosexuality out of Saskatoon’s Public Schools!” and “Sodomites in our Public Schools”(Criminal case) which can be seen as the hate speech in the flyers.
Engineers, contractors, and other businesses must be mindful of and knowledgeable of their legal obligations when performing their occupation or supplying a product. Negligence in the design or construction of a product that results in damage or bodily harm, or could result in damage or bodily harm, can result in liability for economic loss under Canadian Tort law. Engineers, architects, and contractors need to be respectful of their duty of care to ensure their product is precisely produced with no danger of negligence.
It was found that no, Good Year Tire & Rubber Company was not responsible for the “other cost and losses” of the Plaintiffs. Good Year was not obligated to pay the Plaintiffs since there was no agreement made for payment. The error that was found was bought to Good Year’s attention but the attorneys failed to agree on the correct amount.
The audience is anyone interested in learning about first nations customs and how they influenced canadian law to make it what it is now. Police officers, lawyers, judges, and anyone who works for the government would also benefit from learning about this since their jobs have to do with the law, learning about the influences on our law is important. People who live in towns with first nations people would also benefit from learning about this because if they live so close to each other, they are bound to talk to each other at some point, so it would be for the best to understand other people’s laws and customs. Classmates would also be one because they don’t know as much about the topic as others might, so this way they can understand another influence on Canadian law.
The court decided that their needed to be further proceedings for Maureen Davis under negligence and the Alabama State law of having sufficient evidence against Hardees restaurant under Flagstar who didn’t have a strong enough backing or argument to defend that fact that there
As an intervener, I represent an outside agency who does not have direct and substantial interest in the case at hand, but has a definite interest and perspectives that are essential to the case at bar. For the respondent’s, the Canadian Bar Association was an appropriate intervener for two reasons: the CBA had a strong interest in the mandatory minimums within the impugned legislation and the perspective of implementing an exemption would act as a good alternative to amending the legislation in case the judiciary did not see good enough reason to dismiss the appeal. I will present an explanation for why the CBA argued for an alternative to the mandatory minimum, how it relates to the submissions of the respondents, and the reasoning behind the specific exemption clause submitted.
Recently, due to the Carter v. Canada case in 2012, euthanasia, or medically assisted dying, was legalized in Canada. And, with a topic like euthanasia, people’s rights and freedoms become called into question both with, doctors and patients, specifically, freedom of religion, as well as freedom of expression and the life, liberty, and security of the person. Though the case occurred in British Columbia, the province of Ontario created a regulation stating that if a doctor refuses to assist their patients in dying, they must refer them to another doctor who would or, they would face possible disciplinary action. One of the main concerns that arose with this decision was religious doctors arguing that even having to provide referrals go against
“The considerations of practicality and principle discussed … above appear to support the respondents ' case, namely that a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on trust for his principal. The position is perhaps rather less clear when one examines the decided cases … However, to put it at its lowest, the authorities do not preclude us adopting the respondents ' case in that they do not represent a clear and consistent line of authority to the contrary effect. Indeed, we consider that, taken as a whole, the authorities favour the respondents ' case.” (per Lord Neuberger in FHR European Ventures LLP and others v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] UKSC 45 at [46].
Dividends are subjected to higher tax rate compare to capital gain increased due to share buy-back. This discourages shareholders from desire to receive high dividends in place of higher capital gain as share values increase. A comparison is made below between the proposed capital structure and dividend policy.