Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

.: — In spite of the able and extensive argument by counsel for the appellant, we are not persuaded that the learned trial judge committed reviewable error, either in his appreciation of the factual situation in this case or in his application of the relevant jurisprudence to the facts as found by him. ...

.: — We are all of the view that the Tax Court Judge committed no error in law in deciding the issues before him as he did. ...

Provided they exercised their discretion judicially — as normally they would — that was to be the end of the matter. 2. ... South Indian Shipping Corp., [1981] A.C. 909, [1981] 1 All E.R. 289 (H.L.) and Paul Wilson & Co. ... Proctor & Gamble Inc. (1989), 23 C.I.P.R. 237, 24 C.P.R. (3d) 388 (F.C.T.D.), per Reed, J.; David v. ...

Paragraph (e) of subsection 20(1) refers to two kinds of expense deductions — those incurred in the course of issuing or selling capital stock of the taxpayer and those incurred in the course of borrowing money for the purpose of earning income. ... In support of this proposition counsel cited the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Montreal Coke and Manufacturing Co v MNR, [1944] AC 126; [1944] CTC 94; 2 DTC 535 and of the Supreme Court of Canada in Bennett & White Construction Co Ltd v MNR, [1949] S.C.R. 287; [1949] CTC 1; 4 DTC 514. ... Mr Justice Abbott’s warning is thus apt in considering the applicability of the reasoning in the Montreal Coke and the Bennett & White cases in the case at bar particularly because paragraphs 14(a) and (b) and 20(1)(b) relate to deductions for capital expenses. ...

Such an award of costs is ”... normally ordered in respect of the way in which a case has been conducted, not its intrinsic merit. ... Such a basis was disapproved of in the Reading & Bates case, supra. ... The Chief Judge may designate another judge to deal with any application made to the Chief Judge under these Rules. 2 Rule 9(1) reads: 9. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision in these Rules, the Chief Judge may, either on his own motion or on application by an appellant or the respondent if in his opinion special circumstances exist, refer to a panel of three judges designated by him for determination of any question arising out of the application of or pertaining to these Rules. 3 Compare: Reading & Bates Construction Co. v. ...

These dockets were not, and are not, as I see it, " given to the Minister for the purposes of the Income Tax Act”. ... In order to succeed, the appellant had to demonstrate that the documents in question were of a confidential nature within the meaning of subsection 241(1), i.e., that they were: (i) " obtained by or on behalf of the Minister”, (ii) “for the purposes of the Income Tax Act”. ... The most usual and natural meaning of the word " obtained" and of its French equivalent "obtenir", whether read in the context of "any information" as in paragraph 241(1)(a) or in the context of "other document” as in paragraph 241(1)(b), is that of information or document not in the possession of the person seeking either and being "given" to that person. ...

Notwithstanding this concession, the Board found that there were two issues before it which were defined as follows: On the question of jurisdiction it is the Board’s view that the first issue to be resolved is not one of liability for the tax but the general issue — whether or not the mixing and grinding of beef trimmings and boneless beef constitute the manufacture or production of goods (hamburger) within the meaning of Schedule III, Part XIII, section 1 (i) of the Act. ... Do you accept that — both parties accept that? Mr Gordon, is your position that the ground meat operation is manufacture or production? ... It seems to me that the only issue — certainly the declaration can be framed that they are entitled to the exemption or they are not entitled to the exemption but it seems to me that the issue before the Board is whether Loblaws is a manufacturer or producer, so that — and it seems to me that on this view of the issue there is no issue as to whether the goods are — whether there is manufacturing or producing. ...

He said at page 468 (D.T.C. 5333): In general it may be observed that U.S. federal laws now seem to avoid using the word "import" to describe goods coming from Puerto Rico to the United States, referring to them instead as being “brought into the United States”, "coming to the United States”, or being for “ shipment to the United States”. ... In my judgment, it is impossible to assert that, within the meaning of that clause, the words “ if war breaks out” mean, “if war is recognised to have broken out by His Majesty's government recognizing it, if His Majesty's govern ment" had recognised that war had broken out, it may be — and I say no more — that a statement to that effect by His Majesty's government would be a matter which, even when dealing with a document of this kind, the court would be bound to accept. ...

.: — This motion is brought pursuant to section 28 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. ... Hence, for the years in question- 1989, 1990 and 1991 — the hoped-for profits did not materialize. ... Not the least of these difficulties is that, for circumstances like the present, no fewer than five possible tests for expense deductibility — four of a statutory and one of a common law origin — may be applied to decide the matter. ...

Is it not the most basic rule of construction that the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words be adhered to unless there is specific reason, — such as the context or the absurdity of the result arrived at — not to do so and the Board gives no reason here and indeed I see none (cf. ...