Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

Minister of National Revenue^ [11] as follows: … The text writers give us some insight as to why there was a change in dealing with active business income and investment income, and how this came about. ... It was something that we thought would be a valuable asset which would at that point have cost us nothing. ^ [16] His testimony was not contradicted or questioned in any material aspect. ...

The relevant portion of paragraph 20(1)(/) reads as follow: (1) Notwithstanding paragraphs 18(1)(a), (6) and (/i), in computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from a business or property, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as are wholly applicable to that source or such part of the following amounts as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto: (/) a reserve determined as the total of (i) a reasonable amount in respect of doubtful debts that have been included in computing the income of the taxpayer for that year or a preceding year, and (ii) an amount in respect of doubtful loans or lending assets of a taxpayer who was an insurer or whose ordinary business included the lending of money, made or acquired by the taxpayer in the ordinary course of the taxpayer’s business of insurance or the lending of money, equal to the total of In order to deduct a reserve for doubtful debts, the appellant must show on a balance of probabilities that the debts in issue arose from loans made in the ordinary course of a business operated by her and that part of her ordinary business includes the lending of money. ... Tara Exploration & Development Co. (1970), 70 D.T.C. 6370 (Can. Ex. ...

. — (1) For the purposes of paragraph (g) of the definition “eligible individual” in section 122.6 of the Act, the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) of that definition does not apply in the circumstances where (a) the female parent of the qualified dependant declares in writing to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the male parent, with whom she resides, is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of each of the qualified dependants who reside with both parents; (b) the female parent is a qualified dependant of an eligible individual and each of them files a notice with the Minister of National Health and Welfare under subsection 122.62(1) of the Act in respect of the same qualified dependant; (c) there is more than one female parent of the qualified dependant who resides with the qualified dependant and each female parent files a notice with the Minister of National Health and Welfare under subsection 122.62(1) of the Act in respect of the qualified dependant; or (d) more than one notice is filed with the Minister of National Health and Welfare under subsection 122.62(1) of the Act in respect of the same qualified dependant who resides with each of the persons filing the notices where such persons live at different locations. (2) For greater certainty, a person who files a notice referred to in paragraph (1)(b), (c) or (d) includes a person who is not required under subsection 122.62(3) of the Act to file such a notice and a person for whom the requirement to file such a notice has been waived by the Minister of National Health and Welfare under subsection 122.62(5) of the Act. 6302. — For the purposes of paragraph (h) of the definition “eligible individual” in section 122.6 of the Act, the following factors are to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant: (a) the supervision of the daily activities and needs of the qualified dependant; (b) the maintenance of a secure environment in which the qualified dependant resides; (c) the arrangement of, and transportation to, medical care at regular intervals and as required for the qualified dependant resides; (d) the arrangement of, participation in, and transportation to, educational, recreational, athletic or similar activities in respect of the qualified dependant; (e) the attendance to the needs of the qualified dependant when the qualified dependant is ill or otherwise in need of the attendance of another person; (f) the attendance to the hygienic needs of the qualified dependant on a regular basis; (g) the provision, generally, of guidance and companionship to the qualified dependant; and (h) the existence of a court order in respect of the qualified dependant that is valid in the jurisdiction in which the qualified dependant resides. ...

Dexter Ator, (having social insurance no. [... I) is an individual resident in the City of Saskatoon, in the Province of Saskatchewan. 2. ... Counsel concluded that these oppression provisions provide the remedy of an aggrieved shareholder — for example, a shareholder who did not receive dividends in the priority established by the Articles. ...

He also agreed that there could be a drop in market value after 1992 but said that in the history of values that he used there was a drop and that he had looked at a ten year period overall and that his 11 % factor took a potential drop into account. ... He selected the 11 % rate because a demand for redemption couldn’t be made for five years. ...

Thus she is saying that, unlike the situation in McNeil], the amounts received by the appellant in the present case were received pursuant to a directive governing the conditions of employment of senior managers. 1 do not believe that the reason given by Rouleau, J. in the excerpt quoted above was the determining argument in McNeil], for two reasons: a) another allowance paid under the same agreement was considered an employment benefit within the meaning of section 16(1)(a) of the Act because of “the absence of any proof put forward by the plaintiff to show that he actually suffered other losses due to his relocation equal to the [amount] he received [...]”; and b) Because the judge said the following regarding the meaning to be given to the word “allowance”; Counsel for the Crown further suggested that the payment received by the taxpayer was one for which he was unaccountable and that the taxpayer was under no obligation to purchase a home in the Ottawa area. It was this argument which appears to have persuaded the Tax Court and led it to the following conclusion [...]: It was his choice to acquire a home and he received money without even having to prove a loss. ...

Minister of National Revenue, [6] Heald J. stated:...I conclude that the words employed by Parliament in paragraph 60(b) must be interpreted "... in their ordinary grammatical sense”. ... & S. 259, 1 L.J.C.P. 73, 8 Bing. 179 (Eng. C.P.) (January 23, 1832); Barchak Estate v. ...

., for the Federal Court of Appeal, stated at page 6264: [...] the general principle defining an “allowance” for purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is composed of three elements. ... C.A.) at 6176: [...] Even when these amounts are not used for any improper purpose, and even when they are reasonable estimations of the costs, our law treats them as additional remuneration, not as reimbursement of expenses, which require detailed receipts being submitted for reimbursement. ...

In so reassessing the Appellant, the Minister made the following assumptions of fact: a) The facts admitted above; b) The Appellant is a corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Province of Saskatchewan and is engaged in a farming operation near Melfort, Saskatchewan; c) The Appellant’s taxation year ends on December 31; d) Lloyd James Taylor and Mary Jean Taylor are the sole directors and shareholders of the Appellant; e) On November 4, 1993, Lloyd Taylor entered into a “Contract for the Sale of a New Farm Implement — Form A” (the “Contract”) with Farm World for the purchase of the Farm Machinery; f) The Farm Machinery was to be delivered, according to the Contract, by December 31, 1993; g) Farm World is a dealership handling new and used farm equipment in the Province of Saskatchewan: h) Farm World ordered the Farm Machinery on November 4, 1993 from the manufacturer, Ford New Holland Canada Ltd.: 1) The manufacture of the Farm Machinery was completed on February 7, 1994: j) The Farm Machinery was shipped from the manufacturer to Farm World on February 14, 1994; k) The Farm Machinery was delivered to the Appellant on April 15, 1994; l) The retail date for warranty purposes was recorded by the manufacturer as March 18, 1994; m) As part of the consideration for the sale, the Appellant traded in a John Deere 8960 tractor (the “Trade-in”); n) The Trade-in was received by Farm World on November 30, 1993; o) The balance owing under the Contract was $18,000.00 which was paid by the Appellant by a cheque dated December 31, 1993; p) In the 1993 taxation year, the Appellant did not acquire, obtain title to nor have all of the incidents of ownership such as possession, use and risk of the Farm Machinery; q) The Farm Machinery was not in existence, produced, nor in a deliverable state as at December 31, 1993; and r) In reporting income for its 1993 taxation year the Appellant: 1) claimed Investment Tax Credits in the amount of $17,570.00 to which it was not entitled; and ii) under-reported the amount of recapture of depreciation by $175,454.00. ... On November 4, 1993, Lloyd Taylor, on behalf of the Appellant, entered into a “Contract for the Sale of a New Farm Implement — Form A” (the “Contract”), which is Document #3 in this Request to Admit, with Farm World Equipment Ltd. ...

Furthermore, the law firm, the partnership, Waterbury, Newton & Johnson, is not now and never has been a shareholder of Webster Field Holdings Limited, that they're separate and distinct. ... To the foregoing he added: The law firm Waterbury, Newton & Johnson, I became a partner in the year 1969. ...