Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

I must now ask myself this question — is it any different from the taxpayer's plan in Neonex? ... I also agree with the trial judge that the legal expenses at issue herein — those incurred in an effort to complete the takeover and those incurred in seeking compensation in lieu of shares — were outlays associated with an investment transaction and thus were made on capital account. ... Now, it is quite true that in arriving at the profits or gains of a business you are not entitled, simply because — for what are likely quite prudent reasons — you either consolidate your business by not paying the profit away or enter into new speculations or increase your plant and so on — you are not entitled on that account to say that what was a profit is a profit no more. ...

Having said that, I note that the courts are having increasing recourse to such Bulletins and they appear quite willing to see an ambiguity in the statute — as a reason for using them — when the interpretation given in a Bulletin squarely contradicts the interpretation suggested by the Department in a given case or allows the interpretation put forward by the taxpayer. ... Both provisions are specific, but they cover different situations — paragraphs 13(21)(d) and 54(h), covering sales and other situations where a precise compensation figure is known and paragraph 79(c), applying to foreclosures and repossessions where there is no ascertained amount. ... Appeal allowed in part. 1 ‘ A-88-95, Brill; A-89-85, Ochitwa; A-90-95, Coad; A-92-95, Farn; A-93-95 Leung. ...

In the now classic words of Parke, B, in Norton v Ellam, 2 2M & W 461: a promissory note, payable on demand, is a present debt, and is payable without any demand (at page 464). ... The appeal will therefore be allowed with costs here and in the Trial Division. 1 * Brown v Brown, [1893] 2 Ch 300; Royal Bank v Hogg, [1930] 2 DLR 488; Spencer Investments Ltd v Hansford, 48 DLR (3d) 474. ...

.: Despite the valiant effort of counsel for the appellant, we agree with the interpretation given by Bowen J.T.C.C. to the word “used” in the definition of “former business property [1] ” within the meaning of section 44 of the Income Tax Act, particularly where he said that the word ““use” connotes actual utilization for some purpose, not holding for future use [2] ”. ...

Pennington to file the application — but only to the degree that his pursuit of a settlement through his accountant’s efforts did not prohibit him from doing so. ... The respondent added “... I then asked him to prepare a suitable notice of objection. ...

It is also true that the common-law tests to identify charities as set out in the leading English case of Pemsel v Special Commissioners of Income Tax, 3 TC 53; [1891] AC 531; [1888] 2 All ER Rep 296 (ie relief of poverty, advancement of religion, advancement of education, other purposes of a charitable nature beneficial to the community as a whole) — which tests have been accepted in this country (see: Guaranty Trust Company of Canada v MNR, 1967 SCR 133) and are now applied in practice (see: Information Circular 77-14 issued by the Department) — remain quite vague. ... I agree with Mr Justice Marceau that there is a factual difference between the Renaissance case and the case at bar, namely — in the case at bar the Minister’s decision to refuse registration was made solely on the evidence submitted by the appellant itself. ... Rejection of registration has for it, very serious consequences — for example — rejection would very seriously restrict its fund raising capabilities. ...

Richardson is writing to you reporting about HEPC — that’s Ontario Hydro, my Lord, HEPC — that’s what HEPC stands for. ... At this time — we are now looking at the date of this letter — which is June 27, 1968. ... He approached me — well at that time, 1968, we were still a couple of years from completion. ...

I For my first legal proposition — that the BSF program, assuming that it can be viewed as a sort of agreement, is not of the type to which subparagraph 90(1)(Z?) ... (/>) be linked together so as to limit the extent of the word “agreement” to that of “ancillary agreement” — that is to say an agreement in the nature of a treaty or attached to a treaty — is wholly supported by the history of the protective tax regime adopted by Parliament in furtherance of the duties of the Crown toward Indians. ... An examination of the decision in Nowegijick v. /?. [8] indicates that income is personal property because its constituent parts are personal property. ...

.: — The only issue in this appeal is to know whether the Crown had correctly proved its claim to unremitted source deductions in the bankruptcy of Brunswick Drywall (Ontario) Ltd. so as to engage the liability of the appellant as a director thereof pursuant to subsection 227.1(1) and paragraph 227.1(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act [1]. ... Appeal dismissed. 1 ‘S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, as amended 227.1(1) Liability of directors- Where a corporation has failed to deduct or withhold an amount as required by subsection 135(3) or section 153 or 215, has failed to remit such an amount or has failed to pay an amount of tax for a taxation year as required under Part VII or VIII, the directors of the corporation at the time the corporation was required to deduct, withhold, remit or pay the amount are jointly and severally liable, together with the corporation, to pay that amount and any interest or penalties relating thereto. 227.1(2) Limitations — A director is not liable under subsection (1), unless (c) the corporation has made an assignment or a receiving order has been made against it under the Bankruptcy Act and a claim for the amount of the corporation’s liability referred to in that subsection has been proved within six months after the date of the assignment or receiving order. 2 227(4) Withholding taxes- Every person who deducts or withholds any amount under this Act shall be deemed to hold the amount so deducted or withheld in trust for Her Majesty. 227(5) Amount in trust not part of estate- Notwithstanding any provision of the Bankruptcy Act, in the event of any liquidation, assignment, receivership or bankruptcy of or by a person, an amount equal to any amount. ...

The appellant’s participation in the three wells, both as to expense sharing and product, was 13 / per cent. ... As the oral equivalent of the symbol (-), as helping to form a negative quantity, e.g. in '-3', ‘-x’, which are read as minus. b. ... For example, it does not contain such words of limitation as “... to an amount up to but not exceeding the taxpayer’s threshold amount,” nor the words “... to the extent that such an amount is not greater than the taxpayer's threshold amount”. ...