Search - 侵犯公民个人信息罪 交易明细 计算条数

In James Richardson & Sons Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [7] Wilson J., relying on Canadian Bank of Commerce v. ... (as he then was) in Canada (Director of Investigation &. Research, Combines Investigation Branch) v. ... I turn to the first of the “Wigmore Rules” — the documents must originate in a confidence that they will not be disclosed. ...

They accepted a strategy proposed by Goldman Sachs & Co. of New York City which utilized a so-called “Kiwi Loan”. ... The net proceeds to Shell were NZ$151,875,000, after paying a commission to Goldman Sachs & Co. of NZ$1,125,000. 5 The second part of the plan involved a Master Forward Agreement with Sumitomo Bank Ltd. ... He stated: With respect to all of the bargains made on May 10, 1988 and related matters done subsequently I find: (i) that the parties were dealing with each other at arm's length; (ii) that Shell did not carry on business in New Zealand and had no intention of using the NZ$ in its business; (iii) that Shell was seeking US$ in the order of $102,000,000 to be used for its general corporate purposes; (iv) the decision to borrow the NZ$, the issuing of the debentures and the entering into the hedging transactions were based on Shell's expectation that in computing its income it could successfully deduct the interest paid under the debentures, that the US$21,165,000 gain would be accepted as being on capital account and that certain of its capital losses then existing could be set off against that gain; (v) that Shell would not have entered into the debenture agreements in the absence of the hedging transactions; (vi) that the rate of interest of 15.40% per annum in relation to the borrowing of NZ$ was a market established rate; (vii) that if Shell had simply borrowed US$102,000,000 at a market rate of interest, the rate would have been in the order of 9.1 % per annum which, of course, is substantially lower than 15,40% per annum; (viii) that Shell's overriding purpose in entering into the debenture agreements and the hedging transactions was to secure US$ at the lowest after tax cost attainable; (ix) that on May 10, 1988 Shell knew that on May 10, 1993 it would realize a gain of US$21,165,000 in respect of the debentures and hedging transactions; (x) that sham was not involved in respect of any of the bargains. ...

Following the amendments in chapter 63 of S of C 1970-71-72 sections 18(l)(a) and 18(2) read as follows: 18. (1) In computing the income of a taxpayer from a business or property no deduction shall be made in respect of (a) General limitation — an outlay or expense except to the extent that it was made or incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income from the business or property. 18. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph 20(1)(c), in computing the taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from a business or property, no deduction shall be made in respect of any amount paid or payable by the taxpayer in the year and after 1971 as, on account or in lieu of payment of, or in satisfaction of, (a) interest on borrowed money used to acquire land, or on an amount payable by him for land, or (b) property taxes (not including income or profits taxes or taxes computed by reference to the transfer of property) paid or payable by him in respect of land to a province or a Canadian municipality, if, having regard to all the circumstances, including the cost to the taxpayer of the land in relation to his gross revenue, if any, therefrom for that or any previous year, the land cannot reasonably be considered to have been, in that year, (c) included in the inventory of a business carried on by the taxpayer, (d) otherwise used in, or held in the course of, carrying on a business carried on by the taxpayer, or (e) held primarily for the purpose of gaining or producing income of the taxpayer from the land for that year, except to the extent that the taxpayer’s gross revenue, if any, from the land for that year exceeds the aggregate of all other amounts deducted in computing his income from the land for that year. ... Plaintiffs action will therefore be maintained with costs and the reassessment made for defendant’s 1974 taxation year is restored. 1 *The return shows a figure of $580,522 but the parties agree that $495,765 is the correct figure. 2 f There is a $1 discrepancy here which is not significant. 3 * Section 10 is the section dealing with evaluation of inventory property and paragraph 20(1)(aa) permits deduction (notwithstanding paragraph 18(l)(a)) of “an amount paid by the taxpayer in the year for the landscaping of grounds around the building or other structure of the taxpayer that is used by him primarily for the purpose of gaining or producing income therefrom or from a business’’. ...

When asked why he considered the obligation under a credit note as current liability and the obligation under a warranty as contingent, he said: ‘.. the credit note, while it is a liability, is also an existing obligation today. ... At page 179 [87] he refers to the English case of Edward Collins & Sons, Ltd v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue (1924), 12 TC 773, in which it was held that the deduction for an apprehended future loss was not permissible. ...

LaForest J. highlighted the fact that, in this section, “... Indians holding lands or personal property in their own right outside the reserve hold that property on the same basis as all other similarly situated property holders”[FN24: <p><em>Supra</em>note 21 at 128. ... The respondent in this case has suggested, as potential locations of the employer, the Department of Supply & Services office in Winnipeg, the City of Ottawa and the location of the Hospital itself. ...

A definition of “sham” is found in the matter of Snook v London & West Riding Investments Ltd, [1967] 1 All ER 518, where Diplock, LJ at page 528 says: As regards the contention of the plaintiff that the transactions between himself, Auto-Finance Ltd. and the defendants were a sham, it is, I. think, necessary to consider what, if any, legal concept is involved in the use of this popular and pejorative word. ... An analysis of schemes similar, in principle, to the one of the present instance, is found in Lupton v FA & AB, Ltd, [1968] 2 All ER 1042, where we read, at page 1051, these remarks of Megarry, J: If on analysis it is found that the greater part of the transaction consists of elements for which there is some trading purpose or explanation (whether ordinary or extraordinary), then the presence of what I may call “fiscal elements’’, inserted solely or mainly for the purpose of producing a fiscal benefit, may not suffice to deprive the transaction of its trading status. ...

The shares were not actually “ allotted or issued” by the company to the four members of the syndicate until September 25, 1951. ... The meaning of “ benefit of whatever kind” is clearly quite broad;... ...

For those situations where the T2113 designation and T2114 information return are both late, if eligible R & D expenditures were carried out to offset the Part VIII tax liability, we will: a. accept the late-filed designation; b. apply the LFP on the designation; payment will be Collections responsibility and not a determining factor in our acceptance of the designation; and c. allow the investors' S.R.T.C.s as claimed. 2. If the R & D expenditures were not attempted, not eligible, or partially eligible: a. the designation will not be accepted; b. the LFP on the designation will be refunded, if paid; and c. the investor's S.R.T.C.s will be disallowed. ...

The classical exposition as to what constitutes a sham was given by Diplock, LJ (as he then was) when he said in Snook v London & West Riding Investments, Ltd, [1967] 1 All ER 518 at page 528: As regards the contention of the plaintiff that the transactions between himself, Auto-Finance, Ltd and the defendants were a “sham”, it is, I think, necessary to consider what, if any, legal concept is involved in the use of this popular and pejorative word. ... Finsbury Securities Ltd v Bishop (Inspector of Taxes), [1965] 1 All ER 530, and FA & AB Ltd v Lupton (Inspector of Taxes), [1971] 3 At ER 948, are not helpful in resolving the problem before me. ...

. * Notice may be given in various other ways — for example, in an economic statement by the Minister of Finance, a ministerial declaration (in Quebec), draft legislation, or even a press release. ...