Sue's Blog

Showing posts with label tender process. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tender process. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 06, 2014

Arms Length hmm

I was just reading part of a Canada Revenue Agency Document - that's interesting. Wonder what definition a court would use?

Example 1
A has two adult children, C and D. C has two children, X and Y, and D has one child, Z. A owns all of the issued and outstanding shares of Aco, consequently, A controls Aco. Each of Y and Z owns 50% of the common shares of Opco. Since Y and Z are cousins, they will, for purposes of the Act,
be an unrelated group that controls Opco. As A is related to each of Y and Z (i.e. A is their grandparent), Aco and Opco will be related pursuant to subparagraph 251(2)(c)(iv)
 
 
Corporations and Other Persons
11.Paragraphs 251(2)(b) and (c) set out the statutory rules for determining when a corporation and another person will be considered to be “related persons” (or persons related to each other) for purposes of the Act. Under paragraph 251(2)(b), a corporation will be related to another person
(including another corporation) where:
(a) that person controls the corporation;
(b) that person is a member of a related group that controls
the corporation; or
(c) that person is a person who is related to a person
described in (a) or (b) above.
In addition, paragraph 251(2)(c) provides that two
corporations will be related if:
(i) the two corporations are controlled by the same
person or group of persons;
(ii) each of the corporations is controlled by one
person and the person who controls one
corporation is related to the person who controls
the other corporation;
(iii) one of the corporations is controlled by one
person and that person is related to any member
of a related group that controls the other
corporation;
(iv) one of the corporations is controlled by one
person and that person is related to each member

Tuesday, April 05, 2011

Williams/Dunderdale Government shows Transparency in Policy

Below is the question found on the VOCM website today.

Do you think the province was right in contracting out the Labrador ferry service to two companies from the mainland? Why or why not?

Now let's examine this:



TOBACCO LAWSUIT = NO TENDER = PREMIER WILLIAMS FORMER LAW FIRM







FERRY SERVICES LABRADOR = TENDER = NO PARTISAN PREFERRED OPTION

   







FIBRE OPTIC CONTRACT = NO TENDER = PREMIER WILLIAMS FORMER BUSINESS PARTNER





 THAT SEEMS LIKE A VERY TRANSPARENT POLICY TO ME!