Search - отримувати ешмек шешу

[Then follow alternative clauses as to property passing otherwise than by will] 8. (1) Subject as hereafter otherwise provided, duty shall be paid on all, property of a deceased that is situated, at the time of the death of the deceased, within the province. (2) Subject as hereafter otherwise provided, where property of a deceased was situated outside the province at the time of the death of a deceased and the successor to any of the property of the deceased was a resident at the time of the death of the deceased, duty shall be paid by the successor in respect of that property to which he is the successor. 2. (5) Where a corporation which is not resident in the province, other than a corporation without share capital, by reason of the death of a deceased acquires or becomes beneficially entitled to property of the deceased, (a) the corporation shall be deemed not to be the successor of the property except to the entent that the value of the shares of the shareholders of the corporation is not increased in value by the corporation acquiring or becoming beneficially entitled to the property; and (b) each of the shareholders of the ‘corporation shall be deemed to be a successor of property of the deceased to < the extent of the amount by which the value of his shares in the corporation is increased by. the corporation acquiring or becoming beneficially entitled to the property. ...

The Rosyth Building & Estates Co, Ltd v Rogers, 8 TC 11; 13. Mrs Anna H Martin v MNR (supra); 14. ...

He said simply “... a building of galvanized iron or corrugated iron”. ...

Another feature of the area was that Moody Road ran to a dead end at the boundary line of Lot A, which would indicate no traffic on the road, and Lot © would provide a buffer against encroachment by residents of the other property. ...

The appellant’s position, as I understand it, is: 1. “... there is a general presumption in law against taxing the same income dollars twice...”’: In support of this contention counsel for the appellant cited Canadian Eagle Oil Co, Ltd v The King, [1946] AC 119; 27 TC 205 (HL), and Inland Revenue Commissioners v FS Securities, Ltd, [1964] 1 WLR 742. 2... the tax must be imposed in categorical and unambiguous terms”; Then he cited Harry C Hatch v MNR, [1938] Ex CR 208; [1938-39] CTC 85; 1 DTC 447; Oriental Bank Corporation v Wright (1880), 5 App Cas 842; and Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 10th edition, page 288, where it is stated: A construction, for example, which would have the effect of making a person liable to pay the same tax twice in respect of the same subject matter would not be adopted unless the words were very clear and precise to that effect. ...

You said you met with your professors, I believe your term was, “as often as I could ”. ...

Lafleur & Brown, the Attorneys of White or such other nominees, in trust, as White may from time to time direct, upon demand during but not before the months of March or April of each year, White acknowledging that such sum is calculated on a basis of Two Hundred Dollars ($200) per month in respect of each month for which payments have been made hereunder in the previous calendar year and further declaring and agreeing that such sum shall be forthwith upon receipt by her said attorneys be employed by them to pay, to the extent such amount may be sufficient, the income taxes due by her on the said sum of Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($15,200) plus the sum mentioned in paragraph 5. 5. ...

The Committee will review the applications after having received recommendations from local Boards and such other sources as it deems fit, and shall in each school year grant sabbatical leaves to three quarters of one percent (% of 1%) of the teachers covered by this Agreement to a maximum of sixty (60) teachers. 36.03 The Sabbatical Leave Committee shall consist of one representative of the NBTF, one representative of the NBTA, one representative of the AEFNB, one representative of the NBSTA, and three representatives of the Department of Education. ...

By a letter (Exhibit P-23), dated December 19, 1947 (! attach no significance to the discrepancy in dates) referring to the transactions previously described, the plaintiff undertook to pay the optionees, personally and not in their capacities as syndicate managers, the sum of $50,000 out of the plaintiff’s 50% share of the net proceeds of production. ...

The passage from which the foregoing statement by Mr Justice Judson is taken, at pages 606-7 [315, 5229], is:.. » The option, in my opinion, is all important. ...