Search - 包建铎违纪违法案件以案促改以案促治专题组织生活会 个人对照检查

We do not think the words used in subsection 5(1) (/) are apt to include the expenses now in question. The provisions of that subsection are as follows: (1) (f) "Travelling expenses, including the entire amount expended for meals and lodging while away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business. ‘ ‘ The occupation of Members of Provincial Legislative Councils and Assemblies is neither a trade nor a business. ... Rogers, (1926) 11 T.C. 508; Robert Addie & Sons Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1924] S.C. 231 at 235. ...

On what basis can there be assurance of the recovery of outlay in such case "'wholly, exclusively and necessarily ’ ’ made before a net gain can be said to have been reached? ... The fact that the permissive word “may” is used would justify this conclusion under sec. 37(24) of the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1927, ce. 1, but in this instance it is emphasized by the fact that Parliament changed the imperative word ‘ " shall ’ to the permissive “may”. ... It was suggested that the concluding words of sec. 5(1) (a) " " his determination shall be conclusive ‘ ‘ meant that the Minister ‘s determination should be final. ...

It is unnecessary to discuss the effect of the words " i resident ‘ ‘ and " 4 residence ‘ ‘ as applied to the Crown. ... I quote from the factum of the Attorney-General: " " It is submitted that the Civil Servant is an employee ‘ and that which he receives, viz., salary, is ‘ wages’ within the meaning of the statute. ... It would seem that the tax is " " the exaction... of a percentage duty on services” of which Lord Cave said that it ‘ ‘‘ would ordinarily be regarded’’ and should be classified "‘as indirect taxation’’—City of Halifax v. ...

In the amendments made in 1930, 1932, and 1940, what is dealt with is an ‘‘annuity contract entered into ‘ ‘ prior to certain dates. ... Assuming, then, that it was an annuity contract, a point which I do not find it necessary to decide, the circumstances of insurance and the other differentiating features mentioned were ample grounds, I should say, upon which the Minister could rule that the contract was not " ‘ like ‘ ‘ a government annuity contract. ...

“Person” means any individual or person and any syndicate, trust, association or other body and any body corporate, and the heirs, executors, administrators, curators and assigns or other legal representatives of such person * * * 3 (6). ... There shall be assessed, levied and paid, upon the income during the preceding year of every person residing or ordinarily resident in Canada * * * the following taxes:—* * *. and contended that the respondent, in whose hands the income was accumulating in trust for the benefit of unascertained persons or persons with contingent interests, was liable to the tax as a “person” within the meaning of the Act, resident in Canada; that residence of the beneficiaries of a trust for unascertained persons cannot be a factor in determining whether the accumulated income for such unascertained persons in or is not taxable as against the trustee; that s. 3 (6) is a complete taxing measure within itself; that the present case was on all fours with McLeod v. ... Solicitors for the respondent: McGibbon, Mitchell & Stairs. [1] [1930] Ex. ...

—On April 27, 1929, the appellant made a return of his income for the year ending December 31, 1928, which return contained the following entry under Clause 6: Income from Dividends * * * Received from Waterous Limited, Brantford, Ontario, Dominion of Canada Victory Loan Bonds, maturing November 1st, 1983, as dividend declared payable in bonds; these bonds being tax free as to principal and interest. ... The following incomes shall not be liable to taxation hereunder: * * * (i) The income derived from any bonds or other securities of the Dominion of Canada issued exempt from any income tax imposed in pursuance of any legislation enacted by the Parliament of Canada; [Page 410] The appellant contends that he was not liable to taxation for income on the amount of these bonds, and relies upon the following provision, set out in the bond itself, as follows: The obligation represented by this bond and the annexed interest coupons and all payments in discharge thereof are and shall be exempt from taxes—including any income tax—imposed in pursuance of any legislation enacted by the Parliament of Canada. ... Solicitors for the appellant: Henderson & Boddy. Solicitor for the respondent: W. ...

It is urged by him that the conviction and warrant do not comply with the statutes in regard to " costs of conveying to gaol " or costs of " commitment. ... I think the word " penalties " means the fine and the imprisonment and does not include the costs. ... The [Page 61] words " not less than " in the section apply to the " fine " only; and the " fine " does not comprise " the costs. ...

By Order LVIII Rule 15, dealing with the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, it was provided: No appeal to the Court of Appeal from any interlocutory order … shall, except by special leave of the Court of Appeal, be brought after the expiration of twenty-one days, and no other appeal shall, except by such leave, be brought after the expiration of one year … In July 1885, Kay J. gave judgment for the plaintiffs in an action against several defendants two of whom were the appellants. ... Freedman & Sons Limited 2, Thorson P. refused two applications for leave to appeal made under s. 45(1) of the Customs Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 58, the wording of which is indistinguishable from that of s. 58(1) of the Excise Tax Act. ... Solicitors for the appellants: Milner, Steer, Dyde, Massie, Layton, Cregan & Macdonnell, Edmonton. ...

Laurent 125,100.3 " " 507 Parish of St. Laurent 109,406.55 " " 368 Parish of St. Laurent 3,847.70 " " 25-27 Pointe-Claire 8,311.98         $251,166.59 The respondent operates a jewelry business in Montreal under the name "American Watch Company of Canada ". ... Solicitors for the respondent: Genser, Friedman, Phillips & Friedman, Montreal. [1] [1965] 1 Ex. ...

There is nothing in s. 102   of the Indian Act  , R.S.C. 1927, c. 98   nor in s. 86(1) of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 149, that can assist the appellant. ... This is an adaptation of the language of Lamont J., speaking for himself and Cannon J. in Arrow River & Tributaries Slide & Boom Co. ... A second ground is that the appellant is exempted from liability for the duties of s. 102   of the Indian Act  , R.S.C. 1927, c. 98   and by s. 86(1) of c. 149, R.S.C. 1952. ...