Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

(Citation omitted)^ [5] The Supreme Court’s direction is unambiguous: while courts are not to alter the wording chosen by Parliament, there are many sections in this Act — which runs over 1000 pages of very small print — which are ambiguous or unclear. ... First, such a reading of section 55(5) divorces the law from its original purpose and would permit capital gains stripping — the very mischief which section 55 seeks to prevent — in any situation where capital gain exists in foreign affiliates. ... Thus, the Tax Court Judge correctly relied on Johns-Manville Canada Inc. v. /?. ...

In Paragraph 4 Defendant denies paragraphs 13, 15 and 17 adding that in assessing Plaintiff the Minister assumed that Plaintiff, in effect, controlled at all rele- vant times, Richards, Melling & Co Ltd. ... Paragraph (a) seeks documents relating to negotiations between Hogg Robinson and Plaintiff as to acquisition of Richards, Melling & Co. ... However, Rule 448(1) provides for: “... a list of the documents... relating to any matter in question in the cause...”. ...

Upon completion, Deloitte, Haskins & Sells, Chartered Accountants, were to audit and verify total production costs. ... The trial judge said of these witnesses: “... both are highly qualified experts”. ... In other words, the acquisition of the film by One Flag was Clearly a speculative venture. 2 The learned trial judge said: “... ...

In fact, all documentation called for in establishing the relationships between Design, the management companies, certain trusts which were set up and Parsons and Vivian personally, was meticulously drawn and the terms strictly complied with by all parties — a fact conceded by counsel for the appellant. ... Upon the resumption of the appeals, counsel for the appellant argued that (a) the moneys paid to the management companies, should be taxed in the hands of those who earned it, namely, Parsons and Vivian; (b) the income in dispute was not income from a business carried on by the management companies on their own behalf — at most, at law, the only relationship created by Parsons and Vivian with their respective management companies was but a simple agency relationship between them and the bare incorporations so established; (c) the income in dispute is income from employment and as such is not the income of the management companies — it is the income of Parsons and Vivian who earned it; (d) the fact of its diversion does not alter its taxability whether pursuant to legal arrangements or otherwise, and (e) the appearance created by the documentation is not reality. ... The two management companies were not “bare incorporations” — they were fully clothed with all the legal relationships properly documented and acted upon. ...

He was of the view that there were “special circumstances” in this case leading to the conclusion that the expenditures made for the purchase of the lots were “... not properly attributable to capital”. ... It may also be true that, on completion of the mining of the ore, the site of the asbestos deposit and the pit may be a valueless wasteland — a real possibility. ... They could have done it by some other means, but that is the means they chose — that of purchasing the land. ...

In the broadest sense. 1 mean, I think when — I think I considered that the money was more. ... And this was calculated — and I use "calculated" in the very broad sense — based on, among other things, the loss of the stock option and the lost income? ... London & Thames and Manley, supra, dealt with damages compensating for loss of income by traders. ...

.: — We will not need to hear you, Mr. Roy. The subject judgment appears to be based primarily on the finding of the trial judge that all the management services needed by MSS Inc. were provided to it by its own employees in consideration of the salaries it paid them. ...

.: — The appellant raises two issues. The second need not be addressed if we conclude that the Trial Judge, MacKay J., did not err in deciding that the respondent is not liable for income tax under Section 212 of the Income Tax Act. ...

(orally): — Mr. Werry, you must realize that we can only intervene in the decision of the Tax Court of Canada if you show us that the judge committed some error of law or made findings of fact for which there was no support in the evidence. ...

.: — We are all of the view that Mogan J.T.C.C. did not err in concluding that the moneys received by the appellant were on account of income and not capital. ...