Search - 临汾市2天旅游行程

Results 741 - 750 of 773 for 临汾市2天旅游行程
SCC

Bathurst Paper Limited v. Minister of Municipal Affairs of New Brunswick, [1972] SCR 471

  [1] (1970), 2 N.B.R. (2d) 514, 15 D.L.R. (3d) 468. ...
SCC

Minister of National Revenue v. Cameron, [1974] SCR 1062

Independent would provide to Campbell Limited personnel and management services as the latter might require, from and after August 31, 1964. 2. ...
SCC

Minister of National Revenue v. Lade, [1966] SCR 89

I agree with the submission made by counsel for the appellant that in order that the plan with which we are concerned may be considered an "employees profit-sharing plan" it must fulfil the following conditions: (1) the employer must make payments to a trustee in trust for the benefit of its employees; (2) the payments must be computed by reference to the employer's profits from its business; (3) all amounts paid to the trustee and all profits (except capital gains or losses realized or sustained since 1955) must, in each year, be allocated either contingently or absolutely to individual employees. ...
SCC

The Consumers’ Gas Company Et Al v. Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise, [1976] CTC 99, 75 DTC 5423

The action of producing; the fact or condition of being produced; an act of producing; 2. ...
SCC

Midwest Hotel Company Limited v. Minister of National Revenue, [1972] CTC 534, 72 DTC 6440

Subsection (2) of section 20 operates to prevent immediate taxation where other property of the same class is acquired in the same year by providing that the otherwise recapturable amount be applied to reduce the undepreciated capital cost of the new assets of the same class so that recapture does not take place until all the assets of that class have been disposed of. ...
SCC

The Deputy Attorney-General of Canada v. Eric Brown, [1964] CTC 483, [1964] DTC 5296

The relevant provisions of Section 126A are as follows: “126A. (1) In this section (b) ‘custodian’ means a person in whose custody a package is placed pursuant to subsection (3); (e) ‘solicitor-client privilege’ means the right, if any, that a person has in a superior court in the province where the matter arises to refuse to disclose an oral or documentary communication on the ground that the communication is one passing between him and his lawyer in professional confidence. (3) Where an officer is about to examine or seize a document in the possession of a lawyer and the lawyer claims that a named client of his has a solicitor-client privilege in respect of that document, the officer shall, without examining or making copies of the document, (a) seize the document and place it, together with any other document in respect of which the lawyer at the same time makes the same claim on behalf of the same client, in a package and suitably seal and identify the package; and (b) place the package in the custody of the sheriff of the district or county in which the seizure was made or, if the officer and the lawyer agree in writing upon a person to act as custodian, in the custody of such person. (4) Where a document has been seized and placed in custody under subsection (3), the client, or the lawyer on behalf of the client, may (a) within 14 days from the day the document was so placed in custody, apply, upon 8 days’ notice of motion to the Deputy Attorney General of Canada, to a judge for an order (i) fixing a day (not later than 21 days after the date of the order) and place for the determination of the question whether the client has a solicitor-client privilege in respect of the document, and (ii) requiring the custodian to produce the document to the judge at that time and place; (b) serve a copy of the order on the Deputy Attorney General of Canada and the custodian within 6 days of the day on which it was made, and, within the same time, pay to the custodian the estimated expenses of transporting the document to and from the place of hearing and of safeguarding it; and (c) if he has proceeded as authorized by paragraph (b), apply, at the appointed time and place, for an order determining the question. (5) An application under paragraph (c) of subsection (4) shall be heard in camera, and on the application (a) the Judge may, if he considers it necessary to determine the question, inspect the document and, if he does so, he shall ensure that it is repackaged and resealed; and (b) the judge shall decide the matter summarily and, (i) if he is of opinion that the client has a solicitorclient privilege in respect of the document, shall order the custodian to deliver the document to the lawyer, and (ii) if he is of opinion that the client does not have a solicitor-client privilege in respect of the document, shall order the custodian to deliver the document to the officer or some other person designated by the Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Taxation, and he shall, at the same time, deliver concise reasons in which he shall describe the nature of the document without divulging the details thereof. (7) The custodian shall (a) deliver the document to the lawyer (i) in accordance with a consent executed by the officer or by or on behalf of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada or the Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Taxation, or (ii) in accordance with an order of a judge under this section; or (b) deliver the document to the officer or some other person designated by the Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Taxation (i) in accordance with a consent executed by the lawyer or the client, or (ii) in accordance with an order of a judge under this section. (11) The custodian shall not deliver a document to any person except. in accordance with an order of a judge or a consent under this section or except to any officer or servant of the custodian for the purposes of safeguarding the document. (14) Where a lawyer has, for the purpose of subsection (2) or (3), made a claim that a named client of his has a solicitorclient privilege in respect of information or a document, he shall at the same time communicate to the Minister or some person duly authorized to act for the Minister the address of the client last known to him so that the Minister may endeavour to advise the client of the claim of privilege that has been made on his behalf and may thereby afford him an opportunity, if it is practicable within the time limited by this section, of waiving the claim of privilege before the matter comes on to be decided by a judge or other tribunal. ’ ’ I agree with the view expressed by Lord, J.A., in the Court of Appeal, that, in cases to which the section is applicable, 4 Section 126A is a complete code in itself for deciding the question of solicitor-client privilege relative to documents of a client in the possession of a solicitor.” ...
SCC

Pfizer Corporation and Pfizer Company Limited — La Compagnie Pfizer Limitee v. Her Majesty the Queen, [1966] CTC 194, 66 DTC 5172

In summarizing his reasons for deciding that “Limmits” were not “foodstuffs” within the meaning of the Excise Tax Act, Dumoulin, J. concluded in the following terms: ‘* Above all else, the suprema ratio decidendi is that Limmits’, pursuant to the clear language of paragraph (ce), subsection (1) of Section 2, are ‘sold or represented’ in such a way, and intended to secure specified results that unmistakably stamp them with the statutory qualifications of ‘ als’.”’ ...
SCC

In the Matter of the Trust Deed of Arthur Sturgis Hardy, [1956] CTC 233, [1956] DTC 1121

Blott, [1921] 2 A.C. 171: Viscount Haldane, at page 186. While the latter case was one concerned with income tax, Viscount Haldane discussed the general principle applicable in the case of companies incorporated under The Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, and while part of his remarks are inapplicable to companies incorporated by letters patent under the Dominion Companies Act, the state- ment as to the effect of the company’s action applies equally, in my opinion, to such companies: ‘‘Such a company is a corporate entity separate from its shareholders, but the latter can control its action by passing resolutions in general meeting. ...
SCC

Cecil R. Smith v. The Minister of Finance, [1917-27] CTC 244, [1920-1940] DTC 78

Mallandaine in 2 Tax Cas. 179. "But I go the whole length of saying that, in my opinion, if a man were to make a systematic business of receiving stolen goods, and to do nothing else, and he thereby systematically carried on a business and made a profit of £2000 a year, the Income Tax Commissioners would be quite right in assessing him if it were in fact his vocation. ‘ ‘ The fact that in the official reports of the Queen’s Bench Division no such dictum is attributed to the learned Judge, would tend to shew that, assuming he used that language, he did not wish it to remain on record as a deliberate statement of his opinion. ...
SCC

The Fraser Valley Milk Producers’ Association v. The Minister of National Revenue, [1928-34] CTC 22, [1920-1940] DTC 148

These moneys deducted and retained by the Association " ‘for the purposes of the Association’’ are to be expended:—_ (1) In providing for all losses, costs, charges and expenses of the business of the Association, including an allowance for depreciation of plant and equipment, (2) in establishing a reserve fund in compliance with the statute, (3) in payment of a ‘‘cash dividend’’ to the shareholders of the Association, at such rate as shall be ‘‘fixed by the said Association, not exceeding eight per cent. per annum, ‘ ‘ (4) as to any surplus, after providing for these requirements, in paying a sum, not to exceed 21% per cent. of the total moneys realized, in the purchase of lands, buildings, machinery or equipment, or ‘‘ in making any other investment/’ deemed to be "‘for the benefit of the Association”; and in disposing of any balance of the surplus in such manner as the Association may determine in annual general meeting. ...

Pages