Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

., concurring): — This application for judicial review of a decision of the Tax Court of Canada raises the question, once again, of the applicability and effect of subsection 56(2) of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”). [1] The relevant facts are not in dispute. ... Jones wanted the property as part of a large development he was pursuing in order to create an “auto mall” — a major car sales centre. ... There will be cases — some were enumerated in Smith, at page 261 (D.T.C. 5355) — where the nature of the benefit conferred or the circumstances of a transaction will speak for themselves and be such as to render obvious the purpose of the taxpayer. ...

The appellant had been employed only a short time as a commission salesman of M Greene & Associates Limited, security dealers (hereinafter referred to as “Greene & Associates’’) when he met one Dr W N Ingham, a consulting geologist, who was at the time of their meeting doing work for Greene & Associates in connection with a mining property in which they were interested. ... Kaiser entered into an underwriting-option agreement dated April 28, 1965 with Greene & Associates. ... The appellant was not a shareholder of Greene & Associates, much less a person in control of it. ...

That letter agreement reads as follows: (A-68-81 — Vol Il, Appeal Book, pp 207-209 incl). ... Until — A. ’62, ’63, I think right up until 1969. Q. Why was this? A. ... Daly Enterprises allowed John Daly to exercise the option personally until — Q. ...

John Long controlled three companies — Pakall Limited, Pakall Manufacturing Limited and Pakall Compaction Equipment Limited. ... Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that, as found by the trial judge, the obligation to pay the commissions on the ten machines was “‘.... a deferred obligation on account of the initial purchase price of the assets purchased from Pakall”. ... In the Atherton case, Viscount Cave, LC, at 213 made these pronouncements which have been quoted in tax cases countless times: Now, in Vallambrosa Rubber Co v Farmer [2] Lord Dunedin, as Lord President of the Court of Session, expressed the opinion that “in a rough way” it was “not a bad criterion of what is capital expenditure — as against what is income expenditure — to say that capital expenditure is a thing that is going to be spent once and for all, and income expenditure is a thing that is going to recur every year”; and no doubt this is often a material consideration. ...

., concurring): — These are appeals and cross-appeals from three judgments of the Trial Division dated 2 October 1994 which disposed of Canadian Reynolds Metals Company Limited — Société canadienne de métaux Reynolds Limitée (“Reynolds”)’s appeals instituted against three reassessments for income tax. ... Without resorting to a survey of the ample jurisprudence on this issue, we will borrow from the following oft-cited passage from Viscount Cave L.C. in British Insulated & Helsby Cables v. ... Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd. [1964] A.C. 948 (Rhodesia & Nyasaland) at page 960). ...

Au cours de l'année 1975, une entente intervenait entre l'intimée et l'appelante fixant l'indemnité en raison de l'expropriation à un montant de 954 282 $. ... De ce montant, une somme de 171 496,13 $ représentait la récupération de l'allocation du coût en capital relative à des biens de la catégorie 19. ... Suite à une entente en date du 9 novembre 1954, la Couronne avait payé une somme de 371 260 $ à titre de compensation, soit durant l'année fiscale 1955 de la compagnie, laquelle année fiscale se terminait le 30 avril 1955. ...

Without expressing any opinion concerning any of the other grounds upon which the learned trial judge based his judgment, we agree with his holding, in effect, that the agreement of July 15, 1964 between J & J Hotels Ltd and Vernon Motors Limited (pursuant to which the disbursements in issue were made) falls within the scope of subsection (1) of section 137 of the Income Tax Act; and we are, therefore, of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed with costs. ...

.: — The Tax Court Judge, Christie A.C.J.T.C. held that the respective appellants did not hold their condominium for the purpose of producing income and, therefore, are not entitled to deduct a “terminal loss” stemming from its ultimate disposition, as provided for under subsection 20(16) of the Income Tax Act. ...

.: — In spite of the able and extensive argument by counsel for the appellant, we are not persuaded that the learned trial judge committed reviewable error, either in his appreciation of the factual situation in this case or in his application of the relevant jurisprudence to the facts as found by him. ...

.: — We are all of the view that the Tax Court Judge committed no error in law in deciding the issues before him as he did. ...