Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

In my view, the situation is more akin to that which existed in Olympia Floor & Wall Tile (Que.) ... Another test developed by the Privy Council in British Insulated & Hel- sby Cables Ltd. v. ... In this respect the situation differs from that in British Insulated & Helsby Cables Ltd., supra, in which the expenditure was used to create a permanent pension fund for the employees of that company. ...

I cannot accept evidence as credible when a witness — an officer and shareholder of a corporation — says he relied on certain people to inform him of the nature of cheques he is signing on behalf of the corporation and signs the cheques without question, especially when he has just entered into a venture with a new “partner” and would be expected to at least show some prudence and control over his employees to ensure there would be no confusion, but in answer to another question he remembers precisely that a cheque paid by one corporation for the benefit of another was to have been set up as a loan between the two companies. ...

This witness identified the document at Tab 1 which was a letter from the Company accountants, Whynot, Maynard & Bent, more particularly, Chris Maynard, which gave instructions to Mr. ... He had no discussion about the 75% – 25% split. He did not discuss any factors with anyone. ... Argument on behalf of the Respondent [114]Counsel for the Respondent argued that the whole issue is whether or not the Appellant was liable under section 323 of the Excise Tax Act (the “ Act ”) for failure by the Company to remit GST in accordance with section 228(2) of the Act. ...

He declared these liabilities: Unsecured creditors: $303,816.45 Secured creditors: $116,000.00 Preferred creditors: $ 62,000.00 Contingent liabilities: $ 90,708.60 $572,525.05 His assets, including assets of a value of $116,000 in the hands of Lloyds Bank as a secured creditor, were $179,200. ...

As of September 30, 1984 Lone Rock had “tax pools” as follows: Non-Capital Losses year ended September 30, 1981 $ 1,192,564 year ended September 30, 1981 ended September 30, 1982 589,192 year ended September 30,1982 Undepreciated Capital cost (UGC) $1,062,941 Undepreciated Capital cost ('UCC) Cumulative Canadian oil and gas property expense ('CCOGPE‘) $2,658,811 property expense (CCOGPE*) Cumulative Canadian Development Expense CCDE $ 32,641 Cumulative Canadian Development Expense (CCDE) Earned Depletion Base $ 136,162 Earned Depletion Base Attributable Canadian Royalty Income Balance $3,097,605 Attributable Canadian Royalty Income Balance 3. ... Bodrug 2 Bodrug & Son Acceptance Ltd. 424,220 99109 Canada Ltd. 1,192,360 Robert Edgar McLennan 22,955 Estate of Evan W.G. ... This is followed by signatures on behalf of Lone Rock and the shareholders thereof, namely, Bodrug & Son Acceptance Ltd., 99109 Canada Ltd. and the individuals Danford E.E. ...

., $6,550,000 — $600,000) and would be paid for by the assumption of the balance of the mortgage, $3,664,596 ($4,264,596 — $600,000). ... Burton, Lynch, Armsworthy, Ward & O’Neil, had advised the company that the Release of Mortgage from the Bank of Montreal had been received by them on Tuesday, December 24, 1985. ... Counsel for the appellants on the other hand suggested that precisely the opposite conclusion should be drawn from the use in paragraph 85(1)(b) of the words ”... of the consideration therefor (other than any shares of the capital stock of the corporation or a right to receive any such shares)...””. ...

At all material times, the voting shares of Emdulis Ltd. were held as follows: Shareholder*Class & No. of Shares Gwendolyn Duha500 common Emeric J. ... On February 8, 1984 Marr’s subscribed for 2,000 Class "C" preferred voting shares of Duha #2 for a subscription price of $2,000 ****. 19. ... In support of her client’s submission, appellant’s counsel referred to the reasons for judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada in International Iron & Metal Co. v. ...

From this paragraph, she quoted the following excerpt: " Les réparations au toit et au système de chauffage sont considérées comme des grosses réparations. ...

Frappier's claim is made under paragraph 8(1)(f) of the Income Tax Act, which reads: In computing a taxpayer's income for a taxation year from an office or employment, 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: (f) — where the taxpayer was employed in the year in connection with the selling of property or negotiating of contracts for the taxpayer's employer, and (i) under the contract of employment was required to pay the taxpayer's own expenses, (ii) was ordinarily required to carry on the duties of the employment away from the employer's place of business, (iii) was remunerated in whole or part by commissions or other similar amounts fixed by reference to the volume of the sales made or the contracts negotiated, and (iv) was not in receipt of an allowance for travel expenses in respect of the taxation year that was, by virtue of subparagraph 6(1)(b)(v), not included in computing the taxpayer's income, amounts expended by the taxpayer in the year for the purpose of earning the income from the employment (not exceeding the commissions or other similar amounts referred to in subparagraph (iii) and received by the taxpayer in the year) to the extent that such amounts were not (v) outlays, losses or replacements of capital or payments on account of capital, except as described in paragraph (j), (vi) outlays or expenses that would, by virtue of paragraph 18(1)(l), not be deductible in computing the taxpayer's income for the year if the employment were a business carried on by the taxpayer, or (vii) amounts the payment of which reduced the amount that would otherwise be included in computing the taxpayer's income for the year because of paragraph 6(1)(e). 4 Although the considerations that underlie the determination that must be made here are the same whether her income is from a business (section 9) or from employment (section 8) it was agreed that the case should proceed on the basis that she was employed by a brokerage firm and that it was therefore unnecessary to consider whether her income was from a business. ...

Analysis The principle set out in paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Act is that there shall be included in computing the income of a taxpayer " “the value of board, lodging and other benefits of any kind whatever received or enjoyed by him in the year in respect of, in the course of, or by virtue of an office or employment,...”. ...