Search - отримати ешмек шешу

(Cayzer, Irvine & Co, Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, page 491 ante.) ...

No case was cited in which the meaning is discussed and, in the absence of any expression of opinion on it, I think it means what is referred to as "legal possession” by Lord Cottenham in Reid v Langlois (1849), 1 Mac & G 627 at 636; 41 ER 1408 at 1411, when he said: In one sense it [the document] is in his possession; but when possession for the purpose of production is spoken of, that is to say a right and power to deal with it, actual corporeal possession is not meant, but legal possession in respect of which the party is authorized to deal with the property in question. ...

Lord Esher in Tuck & Sons v Priester (1887), 19 QBD 629 at 638, is authority for the proposition that: If there is a reasonable interpretation (of a penal section) which will avoid the penalty in any particular case, we must adopt that construction. ...

On December 26, 1958, by a further supplemental deed of trust and mortgage relating to first mortgage bonds, the interest clause in the deed was further amended so that the bond interest was payable as follows: (i) on December 26, 1958 as to interest accrued to August 31, 1956; / (ii) on January 2, 1959 as to interest accrued to August 31, 1957; (iii) on September 2, 1959 as to interest accrued to August 31, 1958; (iv) on September 2, 1959 as to interest accrued from September 1, 1958 to December 31, 1958; (v) on December 31, 1959 as to interest accrued from January 1, 1959 to December 31, 1959; and (vi) thereafter on December 31 of each year in respect of interest accrued during such year ending on December 31, commencing on December 31, 1960 and continuing to December 31, 1966 and thereafter on November 1, 1967. ...

If he was successful in that field as well, he was to get a further 1624 %. ...

The following cases are included in those cited by counsel: J A Taylor v MNR, [1956] CTC 189; 56 DTC 1125; Irrigation Industries Ltd v MNR, [1962] CTC 215; 62 DTC 1131; Me Laws v MNR, 37 Tax ABC 132; 65 DTC 1; J Funk v MNR, 37 Tax ABC 391; 65 DTC 139; Western Leaseholds Ltd v MNR, [1959] CTC 531; 59 DTC 1316; Os/er, Hammond & Nanton Ltd v MNR, [1963] CTC 164; 63 DTC 1119; N R Whittali v MNR, [1967] CTC 377; 67 DTC 5264; Admiral Investments Ltd v MNR, [1967] 2 Ex CR 308; [1967] CTC 165; 67 DTC 5114; Estate of Frederick J Thompson v MNR, [1970] Tax ABC 739; 70 DTC 1473; Swansburg v MNR, [1972] CTC 2125; 72 DTC 1096; Wellington Hotel Holdings Ltd v MNR, [1973] CTC 473; 73 DTC 5391. ...

The request is made in four different proceedings: (1) Mastino Developments Ltd and the Queen, where the taxpayer is described as plaintiff (appellant) and the other party as the Queen, defendant (respondent) and where the proceedings are described as a statement of claim and contain a number of allegations; (2) Welland Chemical of Canada Ltd and the Minister of National Revenue where the taxpayer is described as the appellant and the Minister of National Revenue is described as representing Her Majesty the Queen as respondent and where the document contains the following words: “Notice of appeal is hereby given from the income tax assessments... ” and the grounds for appeal are dealt with under the following separate headings: (A) Statement of facts and summary reassessments; (B) Statutory provisions and reasons which the appellant intends to submit to show that the respondent’s reassessments are in error. ...

Goodman & Carr in October 1969 by two officers of the appellant including Mr. ...

(e) That upon assessing the Appellant for 1967 he has properly computed in the under-stated manner the deduction to which the Appellant is entitled in respect of the capital cost of property used for the purpose of gaining income from farming in that year: Capital cost allowance claimed $4,710.04 Less: capital cost allowance for period 1st January to 24th June, 1967 175 X $5,778.37 — 2,770.45 365 Amount of claim disallowed upon assessment $1,939.59 (f) That upon assessment for 1968 he has properly disallowed $5,392.16 claimed as farming expenses and capital cost allowance on property used in the business of farming because the Appellant was not carrying on the business of farming, nor in fact carrying on any business upon or with respect to the heretofore mentioned 117 acres of property at Clinton in British Columbia in that year. and in the reply, the respondent also stated, inter alia, that: (a) the amount of capital cost allowance deductible by the Appellant for 1967 under the provisions of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section 11 of the said Act has been properly determined in accordance with the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of Income Tax Regulation 1700, because the property in respect of which capital cost allowance was claimed was used for the purpose of gaining income from farming for only part of the Appellant’s 1967 fiscal year. ...

Martland J. said for the Court (at p 30): “... the respondent submitted that a function is of a judicial or quasi-judicial character when the exercise of it effects the extinguishment or modification of private rights or interests in favour of another person, unless a contrary intent clearly appears from the statute. ...