Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

In 1969 the respondent company — a Quebec family company engaged in the manufacture of feed and raising of turkeys in St-Pie, a village near Montreal — borrowed $300,000 from the Industrial Development Bank to purchase a piece of land and construct buildings to be used in expanding its operations. ... It was submitted — and the Crown generously conceded — that the trust would have obtained an interest deduction if it had sold assets to make the capital allocation and borrowed to replace them. ...

The domestic insurer was Victoria Insurance Company of Canada in 1970, Scottish & York Insurance Co. ... The evidence was that they were required by Scottish & York Insurance Co. ... If the money were not there — money which incidentally had come from the plaintiff directly or indirectly — then the plaintiff would not be recompensed for its loss, at least unless it provided the funds to this subsidiary of its subsidiary with which to reimburse itself. ...

A City Report in 1955 recommended the rebuilding of the bridge at a location 1000 feet east of its old location and the site selected for the location of the proposed shopping centre was a block of some 20 acres, known as Block “J” bounded by Broad Street (as relocated) on the west — Hillsdale on the east — 21st Avenue on the north — 25th Avenue on the south. ... Appellant’s counsel next submitted that the appellant’s situation was that of every investor who enters into a purchase with a recognition that he may dispose of his property under certain future conditions — something less than (in fact, something of essentially different character from) an intention to sell if his project becomes frustrated. ...

In the alternative, the appellants seek an order limiting “... the matter of the appeal to those matters put in issue by the respondent before the learned Trial Judge at the said hearing”. Subject appeal is from orders of certiorari and prohibition granted by the Trial Division on September 4, 1986 in the following particulars: (a) the determination by the appellant Minister purporting to assess income tax as owing by the respondent and the document dated June 13, 1985, and headed "Notice of Assessment" and relating to the taxes said to be owing are quashed; (b) the decision by the appellant Minister to issue a "Requirement to Pay” dated March 18, 1986, pursuant to section 224 of the Income Tax Act and in respect of income tax allegedly owing by the respondent together with the document itself which were delivered to the Royal Bank of Canada are quashed; (c) a similar decision and a similar document to those in (b) supra, which were delivered to the Canada Permanent Trust are also quashed; (d) a decision by the appellant Minister to issue a certificate pursuant to section 223 of the Income Tax Act respecting income tax allegedly owing by the respondent together with the instrument itself are quashed; and (e) the appellant Minister and everyone under his direction and control are prohibited from continuing with collection proceedings or actions against the respondent ”... until it is lawful and fair to do — one certain criterion for which being lawful assessment of Part VIII tax actually found and assessed to be owing, upon assessment of tax in regard to applicant's filed return for its taxation year ended February 28, 1986”. ...

.: — This is an appeal from a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada that dismissed the Appellant’s appeal to that Court. The single issue raised is the alleged failure of the Minister to reconsider the Appellant’s assessment “with all due dispatch” after receipt of a notice of objection as required by paragraph 165(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63 as amended to 1985. 165(3) Duties of Minister — Upon receipt of a notice of objection under this section, the Minister shall, (a) with all due dispatch reconsider the assessment and vacate, confirm or vary the assessment or reassess, or and he shall thereupon notify the taxpayer of his action by registered mail. ... If the Minister does not act, the taxpayer’s recourse is to appeal pursuant to section 169: 169 Appeal — Where a taxpayer has served notice of objection to an assessment under section 165, he may appeal to the Tax Court of Canada to have the assessment vacated or varied after either (a) the Minister has confirmed the assessment or reassessed, or (b) 90 days have elapsed after service of the notice of objection and the Minister has not notified the taxpayer that he has vacated or confirmed the assessment or reassessed; but no appeal under this section may be instituted after the expiration of 90 days from the day notice has been mailed to the taxpayer under section 165 that the Minister has confirmed the assessment or reassessed. ...

Secondly, a norm cannot be regarded as a “law’’ unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate h»s conduct: he must be able — if need be with appropriate advice — to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail. ... It clearly sets no limit, reasonable or otherwise, on which an argument can be mounted that it falls within the saving words of s 1 of the Charter — “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law”’. ... In this respect, he points to cases such as Gordon & Gotch (Canada) Ltd v Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise, [1978] 2 FC 603, and R v Popert, 58 CCC (2d) 505. ...

Joseph Robinson & Sons [7], Walker v. Carnaby, Narrower, Barham & Pykett? ... John Reynolds & Co. (Insurances) Ltd. [9].1 stress that it is the character of the receipt in the recipient's hands that is significant; the motive of the payer is only significant so far as it bears, if at all, on that character. ... Gian Singh & Co. Ltd., [1976] S.T.C. 282 (P.C.), Lord Fraser stated, at pages 284-85: Questions of whether sums awarded by courts are income, liable to income tax, or not, have arisen in a number of reported cases. ...

It was incorporated as James Howden & Company (Canada) Limited, was named Howden Parsons Ltd. during the period that is relevant to the appeal, and was Howden Canada Limited when the action was instituted in the Trial Division. ... The respondent’s appeal from these reassessments was allowed by the Trial Division on the ground that the case was indistinguishable from that of The Queen v Marsh <& McLennan, Limited, [1982] 2 FC 131; [1981] CTC 410; 81 DTC 5307, in which the Trial Division had held that the interest earned by an insurance broker on the short term deposit of unremitted premiums — that is, the total amount from time to time of premiums (after deduction of the broker’s commission) that had been collected from insured but had not yet been remitted to the insurers — was Canadian investment income within the meaning of section 129. The judgment of the Trial Division in Marsh & McLennan was reversed by a majority of this Court on April 11,1983 (Court File A-675-81). ...

.: — We are all of the view that there was evidence permitting the Tax Court judge to find, as he did, that the applicant “in his capacity as director did not exercise any care, diligence or skill to prevent the failure” of the company, of which he was the 75 per cent controlling shareholder, to remit the statutory source deductions. The applicable texts are subsections 227.1(1) and 227.1(3): 227.1(1) Liability of directors — Where a corporation has failed to deduct or withhold an amount as required by subsection 135(3) or section 153 or 215, has failed to remit such an amount or has failed to pay an amount of tax for a taxation year as required under Part VII or VIII, the directors of the corporation at the time the corporation was required to deduct, withhold, remit or pay the amount are jointly and severally liable, together with the corporation, to pay that amount and any interest or penalties relating thereto 227.1(3) Limitations- A director is not liable for a failure under subsection (1) where he exercised the degree of care, diligence and skill to prevent the failure that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in comparable circumstances. ...

.: — Without necessarily endorsing all of the propositions of law adopted by the trial judge, we are nevertheless of the view that he made no error of law relevant to the result in the case at bar. ... In our opinion, the Amoco [1] and Tambrands [2] decisions of this Court cannot be taken as authorities for the earlier — and quite different- state of the Act found here. ...