Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

The rate of income tax imposed by one of the contracting States, in respect of in come (other than earned income) derived from sources therein, upon individuals residing in, or corporations organized under the laws of, the other contracting State, and not having a permanent establishment in the former State, shall not exceed fif teen per centum for each taxable year. 3 + Said Articles I and II read as follows: ARTICLE I An enterprise of one of the contracting States is not subject to taxation by the other contracting State in respect of its industrial and commercial profits except in respect of such profits allocable in accordance with the Articles of this Conven tion to its permanent establishment in the latter State. ... Subject to the provisions of this Convention such items of income shall be taxed separately or together with industrial and commercial profits in accordance with the laws of the contracting state. 4 The Queen v Richard Verrette, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 838 at 844 per Beetz, J: “In definition provisions, the word ‘includes’ is generally used extensively in contradistinction to the restrictive word ‘means’.” 5 T George Robinson v Local Board for the District of Barton-Eccles et al, 8 App Cas 798 at 801 per Earl of Selborne LC. 6 + See: A-G of Quebec v Stonehouse, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1015 at 1025. 7 The relevant portion of subsection 248(1) reads as follows: “Property” means property of any kind whatever whether real or personal or cor poreal or incorporeal and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, in cludes (a) a right of any kind whatever, a share or a chose in action, (b) unless a contrary intention is evident, money, and (c) a timber resource property. 8 See: United Geophysical Co of Canada v MNR, [1961] CTC 134; 61 DTC 1099; See also: Vauban Productions v The Queen, [1975] CTC 511; 75 DTC 5371; See also: Murray v Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd, [1967] 2 All ER 980 at 983; See also: The Queen v Saint John Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co Ltd, [1979] CTC 380; 79 DTC 5297. 9 T The issue as to the applicability of Articles I and II of the Canada-US Tax Conven tion and section 6 of the Protocol and thus the franchise question, need only be con sidered if it is concluded that subject payments are caught by the charging provi sions of section 212(1). ...

They ran no risks whatsoever in conveying the property from one company to another, because they could simply have reversed the whole proceeding by another agreement, and so I must find, on my interpretation of the definition of Lord Justice Diplock (in Snook v London & West Riding Investments Ltd.) and in view of what took place in this case, that the agreement was never intended to be implemented in the manner in which it reads, but that it was always intended that Stuart would continue to operate the business and merely put money into Grover until the loss was used up and then the property could be put back where it belonged and where, I feel, it had never, in law, left. ... In effect, while he did not use the word, in the passage from his reasons for judgment quoted earlier herein, the learned Chairman of the Tax Review Board did find later in his reasons that the transaction between Stuart and Grover was a “sham” as that term was defined by Lord Justice Diplock, as he then was, in the well-known judgment in Snook v London <& West Riding Investments Ltd, [1967] 1 All ER 518. ...

(London: Stevens & Sons Ltd., 1984) at 918-19. 6 ^Kieboom v. Minister of National Revenue (1992), 92 D.T.C. 6382 (Fed. C.A.). 7 The term “amount” is thus defined in subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act: “amount” means money, rights or things expressed in terms of the amount of money or the value in terms of money of the right or thing, except that, (a) notwithstanding paragraph (b), in any case where subsection 112(2.1), (2,2) or (2.4), or section 187.2 or 187.3 or subsection 258(3) or (5) applies to a stock dividend, the “amount” of the stock dividend is the greater of (i) the amount by which the paid-up capital of the corpora tion that paid the dividend is increased by reason of the payment of the dividend, and (ii) the fair market value of the share or shares paid as a stock divi dend at the time of payment, (b) in any case where section 191.1 applies to a stock dividend, the “amount” of the stock dividend for the purposes of Part VI. 1 is the greater of (i) the amount by which the paid-up capital of the corpora tion that paid the dividend is increased by reason of the payment of the dividend, and (ii) the fair market value of the share or shares paid as a stock divi dend at the time of payment, and for any other purpose the amount referred to in subparagraph (i), and (c) in any other case, the “amount” of any stock dividend is the amount by which the paid-up capital of the corporation that paid the dividend is in creased by reason of the payment of the dividend; 8 % Charrier v. ...

Thus, § 7601 gives the Internal Revenue Service a broad mandate to investigate and audit "persons who may be liable” for taxes and § 7602 provides the power to "examine any books, papers, records, or other data which may be relevant... ...

A court should ask — what would the words of the statute be reasonably understood to mean by those governed by the statute? ... Appeal dismissed. 1 “In Turgeon v The Dominion Bank, [1930] S.C.R. 67 at p 71, Newcombe J noted that the maxim “... no doubt has its uses when it aids to discover intention; but, as has been said, while it is often a valuable servant, it is a dangerous master to follow. ...

.: — This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada. Succinctly stated, the issue to be decided is whether a lump sum payment received by the appellant taxpayer, an American citizen and resident of Canada, is exempt from taxation in Canada by reason of the Canada-United States Income Tax Convention (1980), as amended (the “Convention”). ... (Release no. 84-128 Aug. 16/1984) The view has been expressed elsewhere that as a result of the Department of Finance’s endorsement, the Technical Explanation constitutes either an agreement or instrument within Article 31(2)(a) or (b) of the Vienna Convention or a subsequent agreement within Article 31(3)(a), rather than a supplementary means of interpretation within Article 32 of the Vienna Convention: see The Partners of Davies, Ward & Beck and Brian J. ...

.: — This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division, pronounced on May 18, 1995, which set aside a determination by the Minister of National Revenue that excise tax paid by the respondent, Canadian Turbo, on the sale of gasoline and diesel fuel was not refundable. ... (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1977); Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, 2nd ed. ...

Culver himself was very directly on point in his expert report (Appeal Book, appendix /, at page 6): Faced with a choice between the alternative of accruing or not accruing the unbilled income, I would opt for the former. ... Kohler, in A Dictionary for Accountants, 1957 edition, page 408, defines it as “ collectible, whether or not due. ... Gardner Mountain & D'Anbrumenil, Ltd. (1947), 29 T.C. 69, at page 93 was willing to accept "an estimate of what the future remuneration will amount to" and even "a discounting of the amount to be paid in the future.” ...

Langan, Snell’s Principles of Equity (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1982) at 41. ... This Part as it relates to matters preliminary to the issue of the letters patent and supplementary letters patent are directory only; and no letters patent, or supplementary letters patent, issued under this Part shall be held void for any irreg- ularity, insufficiency or want of compliance herewith as respects such preliminary matter, … This section does not help the appellants. ... First, I am of opinion that the phrase “consideration that includes shares, ” in its plain and ordinary meaning, cannot refer to consideration that consists of a simple promise to issue shares. ...

Waters—Law of Trusts in Canada p 90. 2 [1895] 2 Ch 370 at 373;. 43 Digest 588, 376 approved in Re Oldfield, Old field v Oldfield, [1904] 1 Ch 549; 43 Digest 585, 339. 3 + [1897] 2 Ch 12, at 14; 43 Digest 552, 17; and see also Re Burley, Alexander v Burley, [1910] 1 Ch 215; 43 Digest 588, 377. 4 + Underhill’s Law of Trusts, supra. 5 Melroy v Lord, 4 DeG, F&J 263 at 274. ...