Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

These are the figures: Interest received from Lakehead Bonds $2,421,165.80 Cost of borrowed money used to acquire Lakehead Bonds $2,363,966.79 $ 57,199.01 These figures can be broken down by taking the Lakehead bonds series by series and making the same calculation. ...

I now turn to Section 411(1) of the Regulations which, although already cited, I will repeat here: “ (a) ‘permanent establishment’ includes branches, mines, oil wells, farms, timber lands, factories, workshops, warehouses, offices, agencies, and other fixed places of business;” Counsel for the respondent contended that in this paragraph the word “includes” should be interpreted as meaning “means and includes”. ...

Solicitors for the appellant: Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt. Solicitor for the respondent: W. ...

  [1] [1969] 2 Ex. C.R. 149, [1969] C.T.C. 219. [2] [1967] S.C.R. 223. [3] [1961] S.C.R. 98. ...

& Pringle, Toronto. Solicitor for the respondent: E. S. MacLatchy, Ottawa. [1] [1953] 1 S.C.R. 3, [1952] C.T.C. 334, [1952] D.T.C. 1187. [2] [1951] Ex. ...

The learned trial Judge says in his judgment ([1944] C.T.C. at p. 35) that he finds it "‘necessary to find a name for such a contract’’, and that he would say 1 " it was one of lease and hire of work rather than a contract of agency’’. He adds: ‘‘ Looking at the contract as a whole, I am satisfied that the plaintiff is not an ‘agent’ or ‘servant' of the Crown.” ...

Relying on this Court's decision in James Richardson & Sons, Ltd. v. ... Attorney General of Canada, [1962] S.C.R. 729, [1962] C.T.C. 35; 62 D.T.C. 1236, and James Richardson & Sons, Ltd. v. ... This Court had occasion to consider subsection 231(3) of the Act in James Richardson & Sons, Ltd. v. ...

The distinction between direct and indirect taxation has been fully explored by my brothers Martland and Dickson, in the course of their respective reasons for judgment in the recent case of Canadian Industrial Gas & Oil Limited v Government of Saskatchewan et al, [1977] 6 WWR 607, and I accept the definition adopted by them both in the following short paragraph: The dividing line between a direct and an indirect tax is referable to and ascertainable by the “general tendencies of the tax and the common understanding of men as to those tendencies. ... In that case Rand, J stated at p 251: "Lord Greene in the same case (British Columbia v Esquimalt & Nanaimo Railway Company, [1950] AC 87) speaks of the ‘fundamental difference’ between the ‘economic tendency’ of an owner to try to shift the incidence of a tax and the ‘passing on’ of the tax regarded as the hallmark of an indirect tax. ... In the instant case consideration must be given to what was decided by this Court with respect to federal sales tax, in a case mentioned by Hughes, CJNB: The King v Henry K Wampole & Co Ltd, [1931] S.C.R. 494, where tax was claimed on samples produced for free distribution. ...

During the fiscal period noted above the appellant declared and paid the following dividends: Amount of Taxable Dividend Date Paid $ 750,000 June 1,1971 $2,000,000 December 29, 1971 $1,950,000 February 24, 1972 At the time these dividends were paid, the appellant withheld 15% and remitted these taxes in the amount of $705,000 to the respondent. ... This equation may be represented in this form: ART AR = x D CTI or D The application of this formula thus requires the determination of the ART and the CTI of the appellant at the time in question, which time is, for our purposes, immediately prior to the payment of the dividend on February 24, 1972. ...

Ground 2: Common Law Rights to Resist Discovery and Against SelfIncrimination I am prepared to assume without deciding that the common law privileges against self-incrimination were not subsumed in the Charter provisions — an issue which is more squarely raised before this Court in Thomson Newspapers v. ... Solloway Mills & Co., [1931] 1 D.L.R. 831, a decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, and the second was Triplex Safety Glass Co. v. ...