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

During the 1975 taxation year the blackmobile was used in connection with a number of construction projects carried out by the respondent on the mainland side of the Canso Causeway — at Antigonish, Mulgrave, Cape George and on the old Antigonish Road leading to the Strait of Canso — as well it was on the Cape Breton side between Port Hastings and Port Haw- kesbury and at Port Malcolm. ... Newton, Chambers & Co. Ltd., [1901] A.C. 49 (H.L.) at 53; The City of West Toronto and Toronto R.W. ...

Banque des Marchands de Moscou (unre ported), C.A. 1930, cited in Re Claim by Helbert Wagg & Co. ... A debt due from a bank to a customer, for instance, is deemed by the general law to be situated at the branch where the account is kept, Clare & Co. v. ... Richardson, [1927] P. 228. 6 Re Claim by Helbert Wagg & Co. Ltd, [1956] Ch. 323; [1956] 1 All E.R. 129.* The identical passage, which was relied upon by Thurlow, A.C.]., appears in the 7th edition. ...

Nitikman Fraser & Beatty Barristers and Solicitors 1040 West Georgia Street, 15th Floor Vancouver, British Columbia V6E 4H38 Dear Mr. Nitikman: Re: Allison Burnet Social Insuranc e Number [xxx xxx xxx] In response to your letter, dated August 3, 1994, with respect to the above- named taxpayer, the writer hereby further confirms that: • If the final outcome of Peter Burnet’s appeal from the assessment for the 1987 taxation year results in a loss, on account of income, on the disposition of the property (the “Property”) which was jointly owned by that person and the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s share, whether it be one- half or otherwise as the case may be, of such loss would be taken into consideration in determining the taxpayer’s non-capital loss for the 1987 taxation year and a Notice of Determination of such non-capital loss would be issued accordingly. • However, even though the taxpayer may have a non-capital loss for the 1987 taxation year as referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph, the taxpayer’s 1987 taxation year is statute-barred from reassessment, and the taxpayer’s share of any income loss on the disposition of the Property cannot be taken into consideration in computing her income, taxable income and tax payable for that year unless the Minister of National Revenue exercises his discretion to do so pursuant to the provisions of subsection 152(4.2) of the Income Tax Act. ...

., [1977] C.T.C. 168, 77 D.T.C. 5154, Addy, J. had this to say with regard to the meaning to be given to the word “structural” in the phrase “structural building sections" found in paragraph 26(4)(b) of the Act. [3] He said at pages 168-69 (D.T.C. 5155): In the context of sub-para, (b) above it is clear that the word structural” in the expression “ structural building sections" does not bear its usual general meaning of "pertaining to a structure” as the latter word is used in the same paragraph in the expression "any building or structure": it does not merely qualify a component as forming part of a structure or building but, much more restrictively, as being one of the components which inter-connected, ensure [ensures] that a building has a certain weight or load-bearing capacity or which, in other words, contribute substantially to its strength and solidarity and permit it to resist the various forces created by man and nature to which it might be subjected. ... Although the French version of paragraphs 26(4)(b) and (d) is [sic] at variance with one another ("éléments porteurs" and "acier de construction ouvré pour bâtiments”), the identical word “ structural” found in both paragraphs of the English version should govern the matter. ... The position of the Minister of National Revenue, however, based on the same code, is reflected in his notice of decision dated January 29,1988: [5] The word “ structural” within the meaning of paragraph 26(4)(d) of the Act, as it read at the time, does not bear its usual meaning of "pertaining to a structure”, but rather it qualifies a building material as having certain load-bearing capacity or which, in other words, contributes substantially to the strength and solidarity of the building and is designed and manufactured primarily for the purpose of resisting loads. ...

According to Dickson, C.J. at page 126 (S.C.R. 48; D.T.C. 5065): ”... neither the Income Tax Act nor the weight of judicial authority permits the courts to ignore the direct use to which a taxpayer puts borrowed money. ... What was said by Dickson, C.J. in the extract cited above was that ”... the taxpayer must satisfy the Court that his or her bona fide purpose in using the funds was to earn income.” ... But in final terms, what was said by Dickson, C.J. at page 129 (S.C.R. 55; D.T.C. 5067) in Bronfman Trust, governs the present case: ”... the courts must deal with what the taxpayer actually did, and not what he might have done, Matheson v. ...

A Well, I got a frantic call one night about — I remember it was just before we went home so I figured it was about five o’clock at night — from the Department, and in the first place I was surprised because I didn’t know they worked that late. ... In view of these provisions and the decisions of the Privy Council in McHugh v Union Bank, of the Supreme Court in Smith & Rhuland Ltd v The Queen Ex Rel Brice Andrews et al [6], and of this Court in The Queen v Stevenson Construction Co Ltd [7], I am of the opinion that the authority of subsection 44(1) to make refunds is permissive and leaves the authority charged with its administration with a discretion whether or not to grant the refund. ...

In my opinion, the fact that these periodic payments of money by the association to the appellant were called “subscriptions” — the word used by the legislature in section 16, which in any case is a neutral term as such, as Casey, J. noted in his reasons in Richelieu Royal v. Duclos, [1950] K.B. 714, at pages 717-18 — or were called “advances”, does not affect the matter. ...

With respect to “garden seeders” the Tariff Board itself in Mercury Tool & Stamping Limited v The Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise (1962), 2 TBR 328 held that a lawn spreader was not a graden seeder not because it was not an agricultural implement (though it also held that it was not) but because it was for seeding lawns and not gardens. ... I have also turned up a case involving a toll clause in a railway act in which the phrase “‘all sorts of manure” was held to include artificial as well as natural fertilizers (Aberdeen Commercial Co v Great Northern (Scotland) Railway (1878), 3 Ry & Can Traffic Ca 205). ...

Minister of National Revenue [3] *. In that case, an Indian woman who had been working in a hospital which served primarily her Reserve community and which was adjacent to but not technically on the Indian Reserve was exempted pursuant to paragraph 87(1)(b) from paying tax on her employment income. ... Elaborating on the latter, the appellant submits that while the majority of his work is performed off the Reserve, this situation is no different than that in Nowegijick v. /?., ...

Amounts to be included in income for year (1) Without restricting the generality of section 3, there shall be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year, (b) Alimony — any amount received by the taxpayer in the year, pursuant to a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal or pursuant to a written agreement, as alimony or other allowance payable on a periodic basis for the maintenance of the recipient thereof, children of the marriage, or both the recipient and children of the marriage, if the recipient was living apart from, and was separated pursuant to a divorce, judicial separation or written separation agreement from, the spouse or former spouse required to make the payment at the time the payment was received and throughout the remainder of the year; The Tax Review Board concluded that:... amounts to be included in income by virtue of section 56(1)(b) of the Act must be received exactly according to the terms in the relevant order or agreement, and such terms must include details of the regularized pattern of payment agreed upon. ... However, in this Court the parties agreed that LaBrash had paid the respondent $3,000 in the 1976 taxation year. 2 *Dorila Trottier v MNR, [1968] CTC 324; 68 DTC 5216 AT 32, [5219]. 3 f For a similar view — see The Queen v Pascoe, [1975] CTC 656; 75 DTC 5427 at 658, [5428] ...