Search - отримувати ешмек шешу

Smelting & Refining Company Limited, [1954] S.C.R. 58, [1954] C.T.C. 28; 54 D.T.C. 1011; 5. ...

The evaluation formula was set out in Schedule “A” of the defence as follows: Corporation's Equity in the residence $316,135.79 Return on investment of $316,135.79 at 9% $28,452.00 Mortgage interest, municipal taxes and insurance paid by the corporation 8,799.00 Gross Benefit to Plaintiff and wife received from corporation 37,251.00 Less: Amount of benefit attributable to Plaintiff’s wife 18,625.00 Amount of benefit attributable to Plaintiff 18,625.00 Less: Rent and expenses paid by Plaintiff 12,100.00 Net amount of benefit to the Plaintiff $ 6,526.00 The final assumption was that the corporation did not build the residence for the purpose of producing or gaining income from a business or property. ...

I can’t say how I arrived at $10,000 — it is just an amount which I considered to be a nominal reasonable value at the time. ...

There, a statutory tribunal had to construe the word “night” in a context which read: “... he is so severely disabled physically or mentally that he requires from another person, in connection with his bodily functions, frequent attention throughout the day and prolonged or repeated attention during the night...”. ...

There was no legal obligation upon Sparkle to make these payments in that they were the obligation of its sole shareholder — Riddell. ...

Total income for the 1980 taxation year $144,011.00 Less: QPP contributions $ 212.00 Unemployment insurance premiums 204.00 RRSP 4,500.00 RHOSP 1,000.00 Financial costs $24,474.00 IAA 27,338.00* Other deductions 51,812.00 51,812.00 57,728.00 Net income 86,283.00 Personal exemptions 3,880.00 Charitable donations 150.00 Interest deduction 1,000.00 Capital loss carried back from 1981 43,511.00 48,541.00 Taxable income $37,742.00 *Point at issue Having regard to the deduction in respect of taxable dividends under s 121 of the Income Tax Act, the appellant stated moreover in the said amended return that he had no tax payable for the 1980 taxation year. ...

Mr Justice Mahoney of the Federal Court — Trial Division held that the defendant was resident in Canada throughout 1972. ...

In deciding this issue the Court considered other cases relied upon by the appellant, including The Queen v Ensite Limited, [1983] CTC 296; 83 DTC 5315; The Queen v Marsh & McLennan Limited, [1983] CTC 231; 83 DTC 5180, as well as the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Canadian Marconi Company v The Queen, [1984] CTC 319; 84 DTC 6267. ...

On November 5, 1979, the appellant was employed as president and chief executive officer of Swift Canadian Co Limited (“Swift”) which was a wholly- owned subsidiary of Swift & Company of Chicago (“Swift US”) which, in turn, is owned by Esmark Inc. ...

In this case the damages were calculated by reference to two per cent of the purchase price of the Levy shares — what Manley would have been paid if the rest of the Levy group had been bound by the transaction between the plaintiff and Ben Levy. ...