Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

Edgar & J. Li, Materials on Canadian Income Tax, 10th ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 1993) at page 726-27. ... On the facts of this case it was held below that neither party to the transaction had such a purpose, a finding which tends to support the understanding that the purposes of both parties ought to be examined: on this last point see Bentleys, Stokes & Lowlees v. ... Specifically the Minister relies on the following passage of Brennan J. at page 215: Purpose may be either a subjective purpose — the taxpayer’s purpose — where it means the object which the taxpayer intends to achieve by incurring the expenditure; or it may be an objective purpose, meaning the object which the incurring of the expenditure is apt to achieve. ...

He impressed the learned trial judge as “... ambitious, mentally very energetic, of great business acumen,'shrewd and with nothing about him of the naive” (see trial judgment, Appeal Book, vol II, p 252). ... Lord Loreburn added that the answer is in each case “... a pure question of fact to be determined, not according to the construction of this or that regulation or by-law, but upon a scrutiny of the course of business and trading”. ... I would, accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, dismiss the appeal with costs. 1 Appeal Book, p 264. 2 *See for example: Pine Ridge Property Ltd v MNR, [1973] CTC 201; (FCA per Jackett CJ); See also: Racine et al v MNR, [1965] CTC 150; 65 DTC 5098 at 5103. 3 See: Stein Estate v The Ship “Kathy K’’, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 802 at 808 (per Ritchie, J). 4 See: Metivier v Cadorette, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 371. 5 Appeal Book, p 267. 6 + De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd v Howe, [1906] AC 455 at 458. 7 Compare: Union Corporation Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1952] 1 All ER 646 (Evershed MR at 656-8). 8 + Tara Exploration & Development Company Limited v MNR, [1970] CTC 557; 70 DTC 6370. 9 J Unit Construction Co Ltd v Bullock [1960] AC 351. 10 Compare: The Queen v Rockmore Investments Ltd, [1976] 2 FC 428 at 430 and 431; [1976] CTC 291 at 293; 76 DTC 6156 at 6157—(per Jackett, CJ). ...

.: — We are all of opinion that the findings of facts of the trial judge were amply supported by the evidence and that he correctly applied the law to those facts. ...

.: — We do not need to hear you, Mr. Malette. In spite of Mr. Basman's able argument, we have not been persuaded that the learned judge below erred within the meaning of subsection 28(1) of the Federal Court Act in deciding as he did. ...

.: — The application is dismissed. We are all of the view that the learned Tax Court Judge committed no reviewable error when he refused to order costs following a refusal to extend time for filing notices of objections. ...

., concurring): — We can see no basis for interfering with the Tax Court Judge’s findings of fact which were based on permissible inferences drawn from the evidence before him. ...

Effective February 1, 1930, Michigan Central leased — more accurately subleased — the railroad property, along with other properties, to New York Central for a term of 99 years (“the 1930 lease"). Under the lease, Michigan Central also “leased" — again more accurately, I think, assigned — to New York Central the Canada Southern shares owned by it; Michigan Central appears, however, to have remained the shareholder of record of these shares. ... Marsh & McLennan, Limited, [1984] 1 F.C. 609; [1983] C.T.C. 231 and The Queen v. ...

Food Preparation Service Kitchen 513 Food Prep Area 720 Waitress Pick-up 144 Service Bar 157 Cooler 116 To tai 1,650 % square footage 25% 2. Public Area Public Washrooms 217 Dining Rooms 2,694 Vestibule 84 Take-out 213 Cash Area 114 Lobby Stairs 110 Total 3,432 % square footage 52% 3. Other Receiving 102 Stockroom 520 Dishwashing 210 Office 240 Staff Areas- Dining 149- Washrooms 192 Mechanical 72 Total 1,485 % square footage 23% In 1976 and in the following two years, the meals and drinks served in the dining rooms generated approximately 65 per cent of the gross income of that establishment; the rest came from the take-out and delivery service. ...

.: — This is an appeal by the Crown from a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada allowing the respondent taxpayer’s appeal against a reassessment to income tax. In its original reassessment Revenue Canada assumed that the taxpayer was not at arm’s length with Trilogy Resources, a corporation which had required certain options rights which had initially been granted to the taxpayer; the reassessment was said to be based on the provisions of sections 245(2) and 245(3) as they then read: 245(2) Indirect payments or transfers- Where the result of one or more sales, exchanges, declarations of trust, or other transactions of any kind whatever is that a person confers a benefit on a taxpayer, that person shall be deemed to have made a payment to the taxpayer equal to the amount of the benefit conferred notwithstanding the form or legal effect of the transactions or that one or more other persons were also parties thereto; and, whether or not there was an intention to avoid or evade taxes under this Act, the payment shall, depending upon the circumstances, be (a) included in computing the taxpayer’s income for the purpose of Part I (b) deemed to be a payment to a non-resident person to which Part XIII applies, or (c) deemed to be a disposition by way of gift. 245(3) Arm’s length — Where it is established that a sale, exchange or other transaction was entered into by persons dealing at arms length, bona fide and not pursuant to, or as part of, any other transaction and not to affect payment, in whole or in part, of an existing or future obligation, no party thereto shall be regarded, for the purpose of this section, as having conferred a benefit on a party with whom he was so dealing. Following a notice of opposition from the taxpayer, the Minister confirmed the reassessment but on an entirely different basis: he assumed that the taxpayer and Trilogy Resources were at arm’s length and that tax was due by reason of the provisions of section 7(1)(b): 7(1) Agreement to issue shares to employees — Subject to subsection (1.1) where a corporation has agreed to sell or issue shares of the capital stock of the corporation or of a corporation with which it does not deal at arm’s length to an employee of the corporation or of a corporation with which it does not deal at arm’s length, (b) if the employee has transferred or otherwise disposed of rights under the agreement in respect of some or all of the shares to a person with whom he was dealing at arm’s length, a benefit equal to the value of the consideration for the disposition shall be deemed to have been received by the employee by virtue of his employment in the taxation year in which he made the disposition; On the taxpayer’s appeal to the Tax Court the Crown, surprisingly, did not plead or invoke an assumption to the effect that the taxpayer and Trilogy were at arm’s length. ...

The Newfoundland group also agreed that book debts owing by Paving to J Goodyear & Sons Ltd and Goodyear Construction Co Ltd, companies which they controlled, be assigned to the Steeves brothers. ... The assignments, on the other hand, while dated the same day as the main agreement, were made by J Goodyear & Sons Limited and Goodyear Construction Limited as assignors and the Steeves brothers as assignees and were each for a substantial consideration, aggregating $70,000 for debts having a face value of $620,633.13. Paragraph 5(g) of the main agreement reads as follows: That the Vendors shall forthwith cause J Goodyear & Sons Limited and Goodyear Construction Company Limited to sell, transfer and assign all their book debts, including both current and equipment accounts, against Goodyear Paving Limited, to the Purchasers herein in accordance with the terms and conditions of certain Assignment of Debt Agreements bearing even date herewith. ...