Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

Notwithstanding that the order in question may be viewed as a procedural ruling (Saint John Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. ...

His essential and overall finding that the agreement was not a mere “stand still agreement” or an “agreement merely not to pursue,” as contended by counsel, but rather a final one, that was meant to “settle the matter” definitely “a finding that involved, not only a careful analysis of the wording of the agreement and the inter-relation of its various clauses, but also an assessment of the intention of the parties drawn from the factual circumstances and their statements at trial ” cannot be reviewed by us without compelling reasons. ...

The classic statement of the capital expenditure or outlay rule was given by Viscount Cave, L.C. in British Insulated & Helsby Cables Ltd. v. ... See also Montreal Light, Heat & Power Consolidated v. M.N.R., [1942] S.C.R. 89; [1942] C.T.C. 1; 1 D.T.C. 535, aff'd [1944] C.T.C. 94; 2 D.T.C. 654 (P.C.); B.C. ... [on] an advance made to him but was paid on the principal sum remaining unpaid under his guarantee... ” Ibid. ...

A Well, I got a frantic call one night about — I remember it was just before we went home so I figured it was about five o’clock at night — from the Department, and in the first place I was surprised because I didn’t know they worked that late. ... The short answer to that contention is, I think, that the wording of subsection 44(7.1) of the Act — “paid or overpaid in error, whether by reason of mistake of fact or law or otherwise” — makes it plain that “error” in paragraph 44(1)(c) is to be understood as including mistake of law as well as mistake of fact. ... This Court also attached importance to the concluding words of subsection 44(2) — “to the importer, transferee, manufacturer, producer, wholesaler, jobber or other dealer as the case may require” — as indicating in its opinion why the subsection should be construed as conferring a discretion. ...

In this case the issue was resolved by the trial judge as follows, Appeal Book, p. 290; [1979] C.T.C. 296 at 303: Although Defendant has an acceptable explanation as to why he took nominal sums which he required for living expenses out of the company as repayment of loans rather than as salary — Namely that the company’s affairs were so precarious when he again took over that the bank might well call its loans, putting the company into bankruptcy unless it could begin to show a profit, and I am satisfied that the tax considerations did not enter into his mind, nevertheless I am forced to the conclusion that although, at the time of the acquisition, assignment of the loans to him was of little interest to him and not a primary consideration for his reacquisition of the business, the acquisition of these loans by such assignment cannot be considered as a capital investment by him (even if he had paid some nominal sum for them) but must be considered as part and parcel of the acquisition of the business. ... Although the reasoning in the Australian case of Wills is persuasive, the weight of Canadian jurisprudence and in particular the Supreme Court case of Sissons (although the facts in it were somewhat dissimilar in that the taxpayer had deliberately purchased two loss companies and transferred a profitable business to one of them which was able to write off its losses against these profits and thus repay a loan to the other company enabling it to redeem debentures held by the taxpayer — in short a well thought out scheme) lead me to conclude that the enhancement in value of the loans to the company which he acquired from nil to a sufficient value to enable repayment of them to him to be commenced was not a capital profit resulting from circumstances which he did not control but that it was a result of Defendant’s personal efforts and hence part of an adventure in the nature of trade. ...

Issue A — The compellability of Victor Johnson to be examined for discovery either as an officer of the respondent or in his personal capacity. ... Issue B — The request for a declaration that certain loans made by Pillar International Limited to Rallip Canada Limited are relevant to the issues in this action. ...

To put my reasons for agreeing with the learned Trial Judge in my own words, it is sufficient for me to summarize the effect of the relevant transactions — in a manner slightly different in immaterial respects from that adopted by the learned Trial Judge — as follows: 1. ...

York Marble, Tile & Terrazzo Ltd., [1986] S.C.R. 140; [1968] C.T.C. 44; 68 D.T.C. 5001, the trial judge held that the respondent could not be regarded as the producer or manufacturer of the used signs which it had sold because, in reconditioning these signs, the respondent had not conferred any new form, quality, property or combination on them. ... Answering this question in the affirmative, Spence, J. speaking for the Court first adopted the definition of the word ” manufacturer" used in a judgment of the Quebec Superior Court, M.N.R. v. ...

Cost to position machine at Frobisher Bay $ 2,250.00 Cost to deposition from Frobisher Bay 2,250.00 B. ... Flying 285 hours @ $380.00 $108,300.00 B. Ferrying 4,500.00 C. Crew rotations Nil D. ... George Wimpey & Co. Ltd. v. British Overseas Airways Corporation, [1955] A.C. 169 (H.L.), per Lord Reid at page 191. ...

That company, sometimes referred to as " Bomag" in the statement of agreed facts and other evidence, will hereafter be referred to as“Irvcal". ... He also found it (at 280 (D.T.C. 6149)) ” noteworthy that, insofar as the evidence discloses, neither Arthur L. ... London & West Riding Investments, Ltd., [1967] 1 All E.R. 518 at 528. ...