Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

(as he then was) in Québec (Commission de la santé & de la sécurité du travail) c. ... Bourgault (Trustee of) (1979), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 35 (S.C.C.) at 44. 6 6Deloitte, Haskins & Sells Ltd. v. ... S.C.), at pp. 191-192. 8 Québec (Commission de la santé & de la sécurité du travail) c. ...

(Customs & Excise), [1984] C.T.C. 75, 84 D.T.C. 6081; Entreprises Kato Inc. v. ... (Customs & Excise) (1983), 18 Ex. C.R. 31, [1983] C.T.C. 416. Hugessen J.A. ... (Customs & Excise) (1983), 18 Ex. C.R. 31, [1983] C.T.C. 416, at page 33 (C.T.C. 418), stated: The ordinary and accepted meaning of the word "marchandises" (goods) is that of items circulated on the commercial market, items intended for sale. ...

In this situation if there is error in the Board’s finding that the vehicles are trailers for use as homes, — and I do not imply that there is, — it is at most an error of fact, not one of law. ...

The issue is whether the investment tax credit provided by subsections 127(5), (9) and (10) of the Income Tax Act for the 1975 taxation year in respect of the acquisition by the taxpayer of depreciable property was required by subsection 13(7.1) of the Act to be deducted from the capital cost of the depreciable property, for the purpose of computing capital cost allowances, by reason of the credit being “assistance” which the taxpayer “has received or is entitled to receive” — “from a government, municipality or other public authority in respect of, or for the acquisition of, depreciable property, whether as a grant, subsidy, forgiveable loan, deduction from tax, investment allowance or as any other form of assistance...”. ... As the credit in question arises on the wording of subsection 125(1) that “There may be deducted from the tax otherwise payable... ”, I have no difficulty in regarding it as being in fact a “deduction from tax” and, therefore, in the context of subsection 13(7.1), “assistance” which the taxpayer “has received or is entitled to receive” within the meaning of that provision. ...

The respondent, who is a lawyer, entered into an agreement in 1972, on the recommendation of one of his partners, for the purchase from Intercontinental Leisure Industries Ltd (“Intercontinental”) of a 4 / per cent interest in a feature film entitled “Mother’s Day” and the leaseback of the film to Intercontinental for a period of 15 years at a rental of 4 / per cent of 92 per cent of the gross revenues from the exploitation of the film. ...

The first basis for the challenge is section 100 of the Constitution Act, 1867, (U.K.) 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3. ... Paragraph 221(1) (a) of the Income Tax Act provides: The Governor in Council may make regulations (a) prescribing anything that, by this Act, is to be prescribed or is to be determined or regulated by regulation;^ [2] The definition of “RRSP deduction limit” in subsection 146(1) of the Income Tax Act provides: “RRSP deduction limit” of a taxpayer for a taxation year means the amount determined by the formula A + B- C where A is the taxpayer’s unused RRSP deduction room at the end of the immediately preceding taxation year, B is the amount, if any, by which the lesser of the RRSP dollar limit for the year and 18% of the taxpayer’s earned income for the immediately preceding taxation year exceeds the total of all amounts each of which is the taxpayer’s pension adjustment for the immediately preceding taxation year in respect of an employer, or a prescribed amount in respect of the taxpayer for the year, and C is the taxpayer’s net past service pension adjustment for the year. ...

Accordingly, I have found persuasive the comments of Bayda, JA of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (as he then was) in the case of The Queen v Paveley, [1976] CTC 477; 76 DTC 6415, where he stated: It is plain, therefore, that upon proof of a “wilful refusal” to file an income tax return — the “manner” in which it is alleged the offence under section 239(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act is committed — the Court may, not must, infer that the accused committed the act, with the intent to evade payment of taxes. ... The respondent had been charged under paragraph 239(1)(d) of the Act on the basis of his failure to file returns for three taxation years, notwithstanding formal demands to do so — that is, Paveley was a case of nonfiling whereas the present case is one of filing but filing late. ... As was stated by Lord Esher MR in the case of Tuck & Sons v Priester (1887), QBD 629. lf there is a reasonable interpretation which will avoid the penalty in any particular case, we must adopt that construction. ...

Analysis Issue (a) — were the farm lands "transferred or distributed" to the children within the meaning of subsection 70(9) of the Act. ... Issue (b) — did the farm lands “vest indefeasibly" in the taxpayer's children not later than 15 months after the death of the taxpayer within the meaning of subsection 70(9) of the Act. ... On the basis of these definitions as applied to the facts in this case, he concluded at page 177 (D.T.C. 5514) that the property interests here in issue are “ unquestionably vested". ...

Coopers & Lybrand, [1994] 2 C.T.C. 2244, 94 D.T.C. 6541 (F.C.A.). 6 «Vaillancourt v. ... It uses the words "... bénéfices de fabrication et de transformation au Canada... ... The word "transformer" is defined in Le Petit Robert Dictionnaire Alphabétique & Analogique de la Langue Française, published in 1973, as follows: Transformer. ...

The agreement, entered into as of November 14, 1968, provided for the sale by Mr Perini of all of the issued shares in the capital stock of All Records Supply of Canada Ltd (“ARS”) to Columbia Records of Canada Ltd (“CRC”) “at a price determined pursuant to paragraph 1.3” of the agreement, which reads as follows: 1.3 As full payment for the Sale Shares, CRC will pay Seller as follows: (i) At the Closing $660,000 (all sums herein are expressed in Canadian dollars); (ii) Following receipt of an audited financial statement for the year ended April 30, 1969 — a payment equal to the lesser of (A) $400,000 and (B) the result obtained by dividing the post-tax net profits of ARS for such year by $186,000 and multiplying the result by $400,000; (iii) Following receipt of an audited financial statement for the year ended April 30, 1970 — a payment which shall cause the total payments under this clause (iii) and the preceding clause (ii) to equal the lesser of (A) $800,000 and (B) the result obtained by dividing the net aggregate of the post-tax net profits (after deducting losses) of ARS, as determined by said audited financial statement, for the two fiscal years ended April 30, 1969 and 1970 by $372,000 and multiplying the result by $800,000; (iv) Following receipt of an audited financial statement for the year ended April 30, 1971 — a payment which shall cause the total payments under this clause (iv) and the preceding clauses (ii) and (iii) to equal the lesser of (A) $1,200,000 and (B) the result obtained by dividing the net aggregate of the post-tax net profits (after deducting losses) of ARS, as determined by said audited financial statement, for the three fiscal years ended April 30, 1969, 1970 and 1971 by $558,000 and multiplying the result by $1,200,000. ... See Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Wesleyan & General Assurance Society, 30 TC 11 at 16 and 25. ... Trollope & Colls, Ltd et al v Atomic Power Constructions, Ltd, [1962] 3 All ER 1035, in which it was held that parties to a contract could give their contract retrospective effect. ...