Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

In Sutton Lumber & Trading Co, Ltd v MNR, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 77; [1953] CTC 237; 53 DTC 1158 Locke, J said at page 83 [244, 1161]: The question to be decided is not as to what business or trade the company might have carried on under its memorandum, but rather what was in truth the business it did engage in.... ...

The only case which I have been able to find in which this section was discussed at all was in the Tax Appeal Board judgment in the case of Renown Steel & Services Limited v MNR, [1969] Tax ABC 678, which held that since subsection 39(6) is an exempting provision it must be strictly construed and as on the facts of the case the controller held the shares as a guarantor and not as a maker of a loan, he did not come within the provisions of subparagraph 39(6)(b)(i) so that the companies were held to be associated. ...

N 0 witnesses were called by either party and no explanation was given as to the discrepancy of $13,350 between the amount of the accounts ■ collected by Mrs. ...

Again, in concluding, he stated at page 212: On the whole I am of the opinion that. when, as a result of an appeal, the judicial authority set up has an assessment referred to it, the ministerial authority no longer has jurisdiction in the * matter and can no longer act until the court has passed judgment between the parties concerned. ...

& Cr. 359, Lord Chancellor Cottenham adopts the definition of Lord Eldon in Ex parte Pye (supra) and says, p. 367: “Lord Eldon says, it is a person ‘meaning to put himself in loco parentis; in the situation of a person described as the lawful father of the child’; but this definition must, I conceive, be considered as applicable to those parental offices and duties to which the subject in question has reference, namely, to the office and duty of the parent to make provision for the child. ...

After again considering all the facts and having regard to the inclusion of the profit in the accounts and the prospectus, we find that the profit was made in the ordinary course of the Company’s trade and therefore liable to tax. ’ In my opinion, that finding is one for which there was ample evidence. ...

C.R. 202 at 211; [1943] C.T.C. 281 at 290, which was stated as follows: “... a taxpayer cannot succeed in claiming an exemption from income tax unless his claim comes clearly within the provisions of some exempting section of the Income War Tax Act: he must show that every constituent element necessary to the exemption is present in his case and that every condition required by the exempting section has been complied with.’’ ...

I quote here certain statements made by Thomas J Collins for the year ending May 31, 1972, on the Bob-O-Link Farms report: Following the purchase of the “Silver Hills Ranch’’ in June, 1971, from M & A Davis, careful consideration has been given to the various alternatives open to us that would insure a successful farm operation.... ...

The final question is simply this — whether the words of paragraph 85(1)(e) of the Income Tax Act interpreted in their plain, ordinary and grammatical sense in context of the statutory scheme of section 85B reach out to bring within the tax net in 1969 the unearned premium reserve of $10,454,396 deducted in 1968. ...

On the other hand, that same Interpretation Bulletin considers any such payment as a " non-taxable capital receipt when the payment is a reimbursement of part or all of the tenant's capital cost of leasehold improvements". ...