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

Perhaps the best expression of the principle involved is found in the case of Canadian Propane Gas & Oil Limited v MNR, [1972] CTC 566; 73 DTC 5019 in which Cattanach, J stated at 577 [5028]: I should think that “reasonable” as used in the context of paragraph 20(6)(g) does not mean from the subjective point of view of the Minister alone or the appellant alone, but rather from the point of view of an objective observer with a knowledge of all the pertinent facts. ... Making the same calculation at 11 % gives a valuation of $338,160.63 and at 12% of $293,813.91. ... Judgment might be given for the plaintiff on these facts alone. see also the statement of Cattanach, J in the Canadian Propane Gas & Oil case (supra) at 580 [5029] where he said: The onus of demolishing the Minister’s assumptions falls on the appellant and, in my view, for the reasons expressed, the appellant has failed to discharge that onus. ...

As Kerwin J, as he then was, pointed out in Montreal Light, Heat & Power Consolidated v MNR, [1942] S.C.R. 89 at 105; [1942] 1 DLR 596; [1942] CTC 1; 2 DTC 535; [1944] AC 126, [1944] 1 All ER 743; [1944] 3 DLR 545; [1944] CTC 94; 2 DTC 654, applying the principle enunciated by Viscount Cave in British Insulated and Helsby Cables, Limited v Atherton, [1926] AC 205 at 214; 10 TC 155, the usual test of whether an expenditure is one made on account of capital is, was it made “with a view of bringing into existence an advantage for the enduring benefit of the appellant’s business”. ... Compare IRC v Gardner Mountain & D’Ambrumenil, Ltd (1947), 29 TC per Viscount Simon at 93: “In calculating the taxable profit of a business... services completely rendered or goods supplied, which are not to be paid for till a subsequent year, cannot, generally speaking, be dealt with by treating the taxpayer’s outlay as pure loss in the year in which it was incurred and bringing in the remuneration as pure profit in the subsequent year in which it is paid, or is due to be paid. ... See Naval Colliery Co Ltd v CIR, supra, per Rowlatt, J at 1027: “... and expenditure incurred in repairs, the running expenses of a business and so on, cannot be allocated directly to corresponding items of receipts, and it cannot be restricted in its allowance in some way corresponding, or in an endeavour to make it correspond, to the actual receipts during the particular year. ...

Funk & Wagnail's definition is: "To lay or place, as something to be borne or endured; levy or exact as by authority, as to impose a tax, toll or penalty.” ... The defendant in 1964 had purchased most of the assets of Simard & Frères Cie Limitée and had undertaken to pay the seller's debts incurred prior to January 1, 1965. ... & J. 502 where he stated at 507-508: No universal rule can be laid down for the construction of statutes as to whether mandatory enactments shall be considered directory only or obligatory only with an implied nullification for disobedience. ...

Yours truly, E Sharp for Director — Taxation JAB/ep” The difference between the $2,042,407.68 and $1,987,547.19 represents the amount of drilling and exploration expenses originally allocated to the 1964 taxation year and subsequently disallowed by the Appellant. ... Subsequent to the said transfer of property the Respondent discontinued its business and did not carry on any business until after June 18, 1964. /. ... The cardinal rule of the interpretation of a statute so as to avoid giving it a retrospective operation and the established corollaries to such rule are succinctly stated by Wright, J in In re Athlumney, ex parte Wilson, [1898] 2 QB 547, to which both counsel referred me, where he said at pages 551, 552: Perhaps no rule of construction is more firmly established than this — that a retrospective operation is not to be given to a statute so as to impair an existing right or obligation, otherwise than as regards matter of procedure, unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. ...

Apparently he received no travelling expenses in carrying out the duties of that office as Exhibit 6 states ‘‘ with travelling expenses at the rate of 10^ per mile to members of the Commission living outside of Charlottetown’’. ... The agreement seems to provide that all charges and fees of the appellant were to be assigned to that company to be collected by it and that from the proceeds thereof it would pay all the services mentioned in paragraph 1, including an office and would ‘ pay all costs and expenses which may be incurred by the Doctor in the proper conduct of its (his) medical practice’’. ... In that case Thurlow, J. accepted the evidence ‘ that the car was used (in the time sense) a good deal more for the purposes of the practice than it was used for other purposes’’. ...

The shareholders were members of the Addleman and Betcherman families who had long enjoyed an intimate and friendly business association, each family holding 50 % of the shares. ... Loeb & Company warehouse across the road from their property and one built by Pure Spring Beverages, which it had leased to another company. ... Loeb & Company, offering to build an additional warehouse for them in the event that the one they had built across the road proved insufficient for their needs. ...

Jackett, P. in Olympia Floor & Wall Tile (Quebec) Ltd. v. M.N.R., [1970] Ex. ... Reg. 75/84, s.1 and ©. Reg. 39/85, s.1). Simpson's wages could not be considered unreasonable given this minimum and the fact that she was looking after two children. ... (page 26) At page 25 of his reasons McIntyre, J. included the following quote from Hugessen, J.A. in Smith, Kline & French Laboratories v. ...

After referring to the dissenting judgment of Beetz, J and McIntyre, J, Justice Le Dain continues at page 472 of the Cornell judgment: The conclusion that must be drawn from Beauregard, with great respect, is that the test formulated by McIntyre J. in McKay — at least that part of it which requires that the departure from the principle of equality be necessary to the attainment of the legislative purpose — has not been adopted by a majority in this Court as the test for the application of s. 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, and that, as held by the majority in Beauregard, it is too late to do so now. ... " Similarly, although spoken in a different context, Chief Justice Dickson said at p. 347 S.C.R., p. 362 D.L.R. of Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [infra] ”... the interests of true equality may well require differentiation in treatment". ... Reference should also be made to the judgment of Justice Hugessen in Smith, Kline & French Laboratories Ltd. v. ...

The refinery could not operate without water and, in particular, required water for four purposes: — as a coolant in the heat exchangers — as make-up water to the lube area cooling system — to produce steam in the utility plant — to fight fires 4. ...

Cohen had an interest, be sold and the net proceeds be divided, and then this phrase, ” Dr. ... Cohen, reference is made to something that they treat as entirely different and I quote: ” Insofar as monthly maintenance is concerned Dr. ...