Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

Subsections 160(1) to (3) of the Act read as follows at the relevant time, i.e. in 1989: 160. (1) Where a person has transferred property [...] to (a) his spouse [...] the following rules apply: (d) the transferee and transferor are jointly and severally liable to pay a part of the transferor’s tax under this Part for each taxation year [...] in respect of any [...] gain from the disposition of, the property so transferred [...] and (e) the transferee and transferor are jointly and severally liable to pay under this Act an amount equal to the lesser of (i) the amount, if any, by which the fair market venue of the property at the time it was transferred exceeds the fair market value at that time of the consideration given for the property, and (ii) the aggregate of all amounts each of which is an amount that the transferor is liable to pay under this Act in or in respect of the taxation year in which the property was transferred or any preceding taxation year, but nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to limit the liability of the transferor under any other provision of this Act. (2) The Minister may at any time assess a transferee in respect of any amount payable by virtue of this section and the provisions of this Division are applicable mutatis mutandis in respect of an assessment made under this section as though it had been made under section 152. (3) Where a transferor and transferee have, by virtue of subsection (1), become jointly and severally liable in respect of part or all of a liability of the transferor under this Act, the following rules are applicable: (a) a payment by the transferee on account of his liability shall to the extent thereof discharge the joint liability; but (b) a payment by the transferor on account of his liability only discharges the transferee’s liability to the extent that the payment operates to reduce the transferor’s liability to an amount less than the amount in respect of which the transferee was, by subsection (1), made jointly and severally liable. 160. (1) Lorsqu’une personne a, [...] transféré des biens [...] a) à son conjoint [...] les règles suivantes s’appliquent: d) le bénéficiaire et l’auteur du transfert sont conjointement et solidairement responsables du paiement d’une partie de l’impôt de l’auteur du transfert en vertu de la présente Partie pour chaque année d’imposition [...] à l’égard de [...] tout gain tiré de la disposition de tels biens, et e) le bénéficiaire et l’auteur du transfert sont conjointement et solidairement responsables du paiement en vertu de la présente loi d’un montant égal au moins élevé des deux montants suivants: (i) la fraction, si fraction il y a, de la juste valeur marchande des biens à la date du transfert qui est en sus de la juste valeur marchande à cette date de la contrepartie donnée pour le bien, et (ii) le total des montants dont chacun représente un montant que l’auteur du transfert doit payer en vertu de la présente loi au cours de l’année d’imposition dans laquelle les biens ont été transférés ou d’une année d’imposition antérieure ou pour une de ces années, mais aucune disposition du présent paragraphe n’est réputée limiter la responsabilité de l’auteur du transfert en vertu de toute autre disposition de la présente loi. (2) Le Ministre peut, à une date quelconque, cotiser un bénéficiaire du transfert à l’égard de toute somme payable en vertu du présent article et les dispositions de la présente section s’appliquent mutatis mutandis à une cotisation faite en vertu du présent article comme si elle avait été faite en vertu de l’article 152. (3) L’orsqu’un auteur et un bénéficiaire du transfert sont devenus, en vertu du paragraphe (1), solidairement responsables de tout ou partie d’une obligation de l’auteur du transfert en vertu de la présente loi, les règles suivantes s’appliquent: a) tout paiement fait par le bénéficiaire du transfert au titre de son obligation éteint d’autant l’obligation solidaire; mais b) tout paiement fait par l’auteur du transfert au titre de son obligation n’éteint l’obligation du bénéficiaire du transfert que dans la mesure où le paiement sert à réduire l’obligation de l’auteur du transfert à une somme inférieure à celle dont le paragraphe (1) a rendu le bénéficiaire du transfert solidairement responsable. ...

CONCURRING REASONS BY: MONAGHAN J.A.   Date: 20220414 Docket: A-452-19 Citation: 2022 FCA 66 CORAM: WEBB J.A. ... HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: October 13, 2021 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: WEBB J.A.   ... François Daigle Deputy Attorney General of Canada For The Respondent   ...

LEBLANC J.A.     BETWEEN: CRAIG LEVETT and NATHALIE BENSMIHAN OFER BAAZOV and CATHY BENSMIHAN 9179-3786 QUÉBEC INC. ... THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and THE CANADA REVENUE AGENCY   PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec   DATE OF HEARING: May 3, 2022   REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: LEBLANC J.A.   ... DE MONTIGNY J.A.   DATED: JUNE 17, 2022   APPEARANCES: François Barette Nicolas Simard   For The Appellants   Ian Demers Dominique Castagne Justine Allaire-Rondeau   For The Respondents   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: FASKEN MARTINEAU DUMOULIN S.E.N.C.R.L. ...

WEBB J.A.   Date: 20220201 Docket: A-265-19 A-266-19 Citation: 2022 FCA 16 CORAM: GAUTHIER J.A. ... HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN     PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, ontario DATE OF HEARING: January 26, 2022 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: RENNIE J.A. ... François Daigle Deputy Attorney General of Canada For The Respondent   ...

As I have indicated, activities — like purposes — which fall within the categorization of Slade J. in McGovern, supra, are not usually regarded as charitable. ... In Syndicat des employés de production du Québec & de /’Acadie v. ... C.A.). 3 Vancouver Society of Immigrant & Visible Minority Women v. ...

Income Tax Act, RSC 1952, c 148 — 11(1)(e) — Loans — Reserves for The appellant company, conducting an investment business with a seat on the Calgary Stock Exchange, set up, and the Minister disallowed, reserves for doubtful debts for its fiscal years ending in 1964 to 1967 inclusive. ... This resulted in the setting up, by the appellant, of the following reserves for doubtful debts: (a) Year ending November 30, 1964 $ 2,500.00 (b) Year ending November 30, 1965 $ 8,000.00 (c) Year ending November 30, 1966 $11,000.00 (d) Year ending November 30, 1967 $ 6,220.63 All four reserves were subsequently disallowed by the respondent and hence this proceeding. ... Money-lenders, in the popular meaning of that term, refer to the makers of personal loans — usually more or less small — to numerous individuals and not to the advancing of large amounts to corporations and other commercial ventures. ...

Paragraph 4 of the Reply to Notice of Appeal in the Norman Leon matter is: “With respect to paragraph 3 and 4 of the Notice of Appeal, the Respondent says that he, as an employee of Nor-Mar Projects Limited devoted time to the management, supervision, overseeing and superintending of the operations of certain stores of Ablan Leon Distributors and Nor-Mar Projects Limited was paid for those services the sum of 1968 — $ 8,000 1969 — $39,000” Of course the Nor-Mar Projects Limited agreement did not provide for supply of services for “the management, supervision, overseeing and superintending of the operations of certain stores”. ...

The amounts in question are the following: 1965 — $11,695.45 1966 — $12,263.98 1967 — $12,584.86 1968 — $13,143.12 The learned trial judge held that these amounts were not interest and therefore were not deductible under paragraph 11(1)(c)* [1] of the Income Tax Act but that they were deductible under paragraph 11 (1)(d)t [2] as parts of payments repaying borrowed money used for the purpose of earning income from a business or property that were required by section 7J [3] to be included in computing the income of the recipient. ... Pursuant to that section 3(b) the respondent made payments to Traders as follows: 1965 — $11,695.45 1966 — $12,263.98 1967 — $12,584.86 1968 — $13,143.12 Those are the payments which the appellant disallowed and which are the subject matter of this appeal. ... In my opinion, the following items respectively claimed by the respondent to be deductible in computing its income in the following years, namely 1965 — $11,695.45 1966 — $12,263.98 1967 — $12,584.86 1968 — $13,143.12 were not so deductible and that the appellant was correct in disallowing them. ...

Union Marine & General Insurance Co. v. Bodnorchuk (1958), [1958] S.C.R. 399, 13 D.L.R. (2d) 609; Lessard v. Paquin (1974), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 665, 56 D.L.R. (3d) 726; Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Co. v. ... Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co.) (1981), [1981] 1 S.C.R. 600, 123 D.L.R. (3d) 513 ...

In addition, the following payments, representing its portion of the interest due on the principal sum remaining unpaid under the October 4, 1977 agreement with Bathurst, were made to Bathurst in the 1977 and 1978 taxation years: 1977 — 1 /2 per cent above prime — $ 75,898 1978 — 1'/2 per cent above prime — $105,937 The appellant had been able to accomplish this pre-payment by borrowing money from the Bank of Montreal at an interest rate of one-half per cent above prime. The following interest payments were made to the Bank of Montreal in the 1978 and 1979 taxation years for the use of those borrowed funds: 1978 — /2 per cent above prime — $148,692 1979 — /2 per cent above prime — $238,604 For its 1977, 1978 and 1979 taxation years, the appellant treated all the principal amounts paid in respect of the Series “B” Notes as capital losses, half of which were either claimed as allowable capital losses in the year or carried forward for future years. ... In this case that eligible use would have to be ”.. for the purpose of earning income from a business or property...”. ...