| |
|
ARCANA.............................................................................................................3
|
| 'right' to a definable amount of income is irrelevant. I do not believe that the niceties and arcana of | 926 |
| rejected private law, sometimes in very strong terms: we will not be bound by the arcana of | 2028 |
| "I do not believe that the niceties and arcana of ancient property law should be fastened upon with | 2938 |
| |
|
ARCHER-............................................................................................................1
|
| The decision is Archer- Shee is also important for a second reason. In finding liability to tax in this | 2678 |
| |
|
ARCHER-SHEE........................................................................................................20
|
| The leading case in this area is Archer-Shee v. Baker, a decision of the House of Lords. In | 2588 |
| securities. Frances was married to Sir Martin Archer-Shee , who was assessed under the British | 2594 |
| United Kingdom. In short, Sir Martin Archer-Shee was liable only if the funds paid into the New | 2604 |
| Mr. Maugham says that she (the Lady Archer-Shee ) has no interest specifically in the stocks, | 2608 |
| of Lady Archer-Shee based on private law principles was clear. This, however, did not necessarily | 2664 |
| the Trust Company of New York to the order of Lady Archer-Shee , the Respondent's wife, at | 2668 |
| case, the House of Lords also held, in effect, that Lady Archer-Shee was the beneficial owner of | 2678 |
| Of some significance is that Lady Archer-Shee was the sole income beneficiary of a fixed trust | 2696 |
| Archer-Shee was nonetheless applied by the Supreme Court of Canada in in Minister of | 2700 |
| Archer-Shee v. Baker strongly supports this view. | 2720 |
| Rand and Estey J., dissented on the tax effect of the intervening trust and whether Archer-Shee | 2730 |
| of the underlying securities. That was not present in Archer-Shee . He also stressed the enormous | 2732 |
| not, in circumstances such as existed in Archer-Shee , destroy the identity of the dividends or | 2738 |
| M.N.R. v. Trans-Canada Investment Corporation Ltd. carries Archer-Shee to the furthest limit it has | 2742 |
| After citing Syme, Archer-Shee , and Trans-Canada Investment Corporation Ltd., Thurlow, J. stated | 2770 |
| Archer-Shee v. Baker, A.C. (H.L.). This decision has received mixed support in | 2922 |
| Investment Corp. Ltd. S.C.R. , D.L.R. (S.C.C.). Archer-Shee was also cited in Pan | 2924 |
| income generated by a trust of which heshe is a beneficiary. See Archer-Shee v. Baker, A.C. | 3054 |
| the same as in U.K.. As a result the Lady Archer-Shee could not be considered the beneficial owner of the | 3366 |
| S.C.R. , D.L.R. . Archer-Shee was also cited in Pan American Trust Co. V. | 3368 |
| |
|
AREA...............................................................................................................5
|
| of uses (trusts). The Chancellor's role in this area dates back as early as , and was critical to | 338 |
| the uniformity of jurisprudence in this area . He states as follows: | 654 |
| decision has been widely criticized as confusing the law in this area , and mercifully has not been | 962 |
| An extensive review of case law in this area is required to provide a complete answer to the | 1226 |
| The leading case in this area is Archer-Shee v. Baker, a decision of the House of Lords. In | 2588 |
| |
|
AREAS..............................................................................................................1
|
| Whether this expanded meaning extends to other areas of the law or even other tax statutes where | 672 |
| |
|
ARGUABLY...........................................................................................................2
|
| context could also arguably include shares that are beneficially owned within the meaning of that | 1840 |
| commonly understood) arguably occurs. The change occurs because the trustee is considered in | 2056 |
| |
|
ARGUE..............................................................................................................1
|
| argue that the rights are in personam would claim? If the latter advocates are correct, does the | 1996 |
| |
|
ARGUED.............................................................................................................8
|
| The appellants argued before the Supreme Court that there was a distinction between (i) the mere | 696 |
| meaning to be attributed to the words 'beneficially entitled' in that Act. The taxpayers argued that | 758 |
| applied. Rand J. argued that the respondent trust corporation was entitled only to a fractional part | 2732 |
| See Willis v. MNR, Carswell Nat , Tax A.B.C. where it was argued that the | 3008 |
| them, it has been argued that there is an ability to tax beneficiaries with respect to the assets of a trust or | 3052 |
| See Willis v. MNR, Carswell Nat , Tax A.B.C. where it was argued that the | 3108 |
| newspaper in section . It was argued by the taxpayer that the trustee beneficially owns trust property in | 3290 |
| See Willis v. MNR, Carswell Nat , Tax A.B.C. where it was argued that the | 3322 |
| |
|
ARGUMENT...........................................................................................................12
|
| expression are found and credible legal argument leads to a conclusion that multiple persons may | 42 |
| thus negating an argument that this was a bare trust. Other tax decisions have also examined | 1136 |
| beneficial ownership, as used in this context, is based on a potential legal argument that the | 1720 |
| arrangement, a plausible legal argument is that the trustee is the beneficial owner in this context. | 1722 |
| example, it would be the basis for legal argument about whether a corporation is a CCPC | 1990 |
| argument which carries him home in this case. Of the correctness of the proposition generally | 2610 |
| pays it. I do not understand that so far there was any contest. The Appellant's argument is that | 2648 |
| led to the argument that the beneficiary has a right in rem with respect to trust property. | 2830 |
| court did not accept this argument . | 3010 |
| court did not accept this argument . | 3110 |
| determining whether the ownership requirements under that section were met. This is the legal argument | 3292 |
| court did not accept this argument . | 3326 |
| |
|
ARGUMENTS..........................................................................................................1
|
| Rowlett J. outlined the arguments of both parties succinctly, | 2608 |
| |
|
ARISE..............................................................................................................2
|
| resolving the very different questions that arise under subsection (l) of the Income Tax Act. | 952 |
| of a discretionary trust. This CBCA definition implies that beneficial ownership may arise in these | 1236 |
| |
|
ARISEN.............................................................................................................2
|
| enjoyment of the trust assets is to be viewed for tax purposes. This issue has arisen under a | 2584 |
| In Canada, the issue has arisen under both Succession Duty legislation, as well as the Income | 3352 |
| |
|
ARISES.............................................................................................................1
|
| property arises both when the words beneficial ownerownership or owned are used as well as | 2010 |
| |
|
ARISING............................................................................................................5
|
| Beneficial interest, also defined in section , means an interest arising out of the beneficial | 1216 |
| arising out of beneficial ownership. In my view this definition is much narrower than the general | 1310 |
| "beneficial interest" means an interest arising out of the beneficial ownership of securities; | 1458 |
| York Bank account were income arising from securities. | 2606 |
| give her the income arising therefrom, according to the trust. Her interest is that of equity and it | 2614 |
| |
|
ARM................................................................................................................4
|
| related affiliated, or at arm s length? | 172 |
| related, affiliated, or at arm s length? The answer to each of these questions | 1590 |
| arm s length if the taxpayer, or any person not dealing at arms length with the taxpayer, would | 2234 |
| arms length if the taxpayer, or any person not dealing at arm s length with the taxpayer, would | 2234 |
| |
|
ARM'S..............................................................................................................5
|
| particular person, a person not dealing at arm's length with the person, a controlled foreign affiliate, | 906 |
| dealing at arm's length with the beneficiary, owned in total less than of the issued | 1858 |
| particular person, a person not dealing at arm's length with the other person, a controlled foreign | 2076 |
| at arm's length for no consideration or for consideration less than the fair market value of the | 2188 |
| and for those purposes, a particular trust is deemed not to deal at arm's length with another | 2190 |
| |
|
AROSE..............................................................................................................3
|
| or an estate that arose on and as a consequence of the death of an individual) in the year or | 2202 |
| of whether the beneficiary also had rights to or an interest in specific trust arose , and, in particular, | 2548 |
| which arose only from looseness of language and forgetfulness of Maitlands axiom, unless the case was | 3362 |
| |
|
ARRANGEMENT........................................................................................................23
|
| trust or subsection () arrangement (discussed below) would be considered the beneficial | 208 |
| - A beneficiary of a trust described in a subsection () arrangement is also considered to | 210 |
| trust is deemed not to include an arrangement under which the trust can reasonably be | 212 |
| with all of the trust property. This would include a trust arrangement involving beneficiaries other | 214 |
| .There may also be more than one beneficiary under a subsection () arrangement , resulting | 218 |
| of trust property. The term a 'bare trust' is generally used to describe a trust arrangement in which | 576 |
| to call for the trust property at any time. This form of trust arrangement is often used by a | 578 |
| Aside from a bare trust arrangement , determining who is the beneficial owner of trust property can | 584 |
| 'beneficially interested' where, under the terms or conditions of the trust or any arrangement , the | 904 |
| trust or subsection () arrangement (discussed below) would be considered the beneficial | 1634 |
| A beneficiary of a trust described in a subsection () arrangement is also considered | 1638 |
| provides that a trust is deemed not to include an arrangement under which the trust can | 1640 |
| all dealings with all of the trust property. This would include a trust arrangement involving | 1642 |
| arrangement , resulting in a number of taxpayers being viewed together as the beneficial owner(s). | 1646 |
| arrangement . It would also appear that the meaning of beneficial ownership in these provisions | 1712 |
| arrangement , a plausible legal argument is that the trustee is the beneficial owner in this context. | 1722 |
| as beneficial owner, if held through a bare trust, agency or subsection () arrangement , and | 1838 |
| is a bare trust, subsection () arrangement , or a resulting or constructive trust, the beneficial | 2038 |
| beneficially interested where, under the terms or conditions of the trust or any arrangement , the | 2074 |
| (ii) because of the terms or conditions of the particular trust or any arrangement in respect of | 2224 |
| Ms. Walser provides as an example of this point the following swap arrangement . A treaty | 3174 |
| swap arrangement with a resident of a non treaty country under which he agrees to pay the non treaty | 3178 |
| of a bare, resulting, or constructive trust, or more recently, under a subsection () arrangement . | 3272 |