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

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. ...

However, the next question to be asked is — is that situation affected by the fact that the amounts held to be payable by the judgments of Judge Ferg might have been varied if the appeals had been successful in whole or in part? ...

After purchase the farm operation continued under a 7,- */ crop sharing arrangement with the vendor Mr Clarence Hayes, with Mr Jarvis going out two or three times a year to look at the crop. ...

What is the line which separates the two classes of cases may be difficult to define, and each case must be considered according to its facts; the question to be determined being — Is the sum of gain that has been made a mere enhancement of value by realising a security, or is it a gain made in an operation of business in carrying out a scheme for profit-making? ...

Its shares were held equally by two groups — that of Mr Max Tanenbaum and that of Mr William McLachlan. 2. ...

I must find against the appellant on the basis that the transaction referred to in the statement of facts constituted a sham, within the definition of that word in Snook v London & West Riding Investments, Ltd, (1967) 1 All ER 519, where Lord Diplock said at 528:... if it has any meaning in law, it means acts done or documents executed by the parties to the “sham” which are intended by them to give to third parties or to the court the appearance of creating between the parties legal rights and obligations different from the actual legal rights and obligations (if any) which the parties intend to create. ...