Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

Counsel for the appellant relied in large part in his submissions before this Court on the judgment in the Supreme Court of Canada in The Queen v York Marble Tile & Terrazzo Ltd, [1968] S.C.R. 140; [1968] CTC 44; 68 DTC 5001. ... For the foregoing reasons, the appeal should be dismissed with costs. 1 eg The Royal Bank of Canada v D/MNR, [1979] CTC 342; 79 DTC 5263. 2 The Royal Bank of Canada v DMNR, supra. see also: The King v Pedrick & Païen (1921), 21 Ex CR 14. ... The King v Shelly, [1936] 1 DLR 415; [1935-37] CTC 48; 1 DTC 298. 3 T Statement of evidence of Dr James F Richards, pp 9 & 10. 4 In that connection, while there is no evidence on the record to substantiate the view, I think it inconceivable that a housewife would dream that she could be described as a manufacturer or processor in the preparation of meals for her family, an operation which differs only in scale from that performed by the chef in a restaurant’s kitchen. ...

It is convenient to deal first with the claims against the defendants other than the Crown — that is, the issues raised by the appeals of the defendants Davidson and Morrison and by the plaintiff’s cross-appeal against the order Striking out the statement of claim and dismissing the action as against the defendants Wilkie, Smith and Statham. ... The other question raised by the appeals and the cross-appeal — whether, apart from the question of jurisdiction, the statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action against these defendants — may be treated as alternative to the question of jurisdiction. ...

I — The Canada-US Reciprocal Tax Convention. The appellants’ first argument is based on article I of the Convention which, according to Mr Vineberg, must be interpreted as providing that a resident of the United States who has no permanent establishment in Canada cannot be taxed in Canada on his commercial and industrial profits. ... II — Section 85B of the Act In order to understand the last argument submitted on behalf of the appellants, it is first necessary to have in mind some of the provisions contained in section 85B of the Income Tax Act: Sec 85B (1) In computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year, (b) every amount receivable in respect of property sold... in the course of business in the year shall be included notwithstanding that the amount is not receivable until a subsequent year... ... For these reasons, I would allow the appeal in part, dismiss the crossappeal and substitute the following judgment for the judgment of the Trial Division: The appeal is allowed in part and the assessments are referred back to the Minister for reassessment on the basis: (a) that Mr Abed had only a % interest in lot 128 in the Parish of Pointe Claire; (b) that, in determining the profit realized by Mr Abed on the sale of lot 128 in the Parish of Pointe Claire, there should be deducted from gross profits all expenses related thereto; and (c) that no part of the profit realized by Mr Abed on the sale, in 1959, of lot 278 in the Parish of Ste-Geneviève is to be included in Mr Abed’s income for the subsequent years. ...

Paragraph 20(1) of the Act reads as follows: 20(1) Notwithstanding paragraphs 18(1)(a), (b) and (h), in computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from a business or property, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as are wholly applicable to that source or such part of the following amounts as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto: (c) Interest — an amount paid in the year or payable in respect of the year (depending on the method regularly followed by the taxpayer in computing the taxpayer’s income), pursuant to a legal obligation to pay interest on (i) borrowed money used for the purpose of earning income from a business or property... 20(1) Nonobstant les dispositions des alinéas 18(1)a), b) et h), lors du calcul du revenu tiré par un contribuable d’une entreprise ou d’un bien pour une année d’imposition, peuvent être déduites celles des sommes suivantes qui se rap- portent entièrement à cette source de revenus ou la partie des sommes suivantes qu'il est raisonnablement être considérée comme s’y rapportant: (c) Intérêts.-- une somme payée dans l’année ou payable pour l’année (suivant la méthode habituellement utilisée par le contribuable dans le calcul de son revenu) en exécution d’une obligation légale de verser des intérêts sur: (i) de l’argent emprunté et utilisé en vue de tirer un revenu d’une entreprise ou d’un bien... ... Pursuant to subsection 18(4) of the Act, the Minister reassessed the Appellant in the following manner: 1984 1985 1986 1987 Appellants total debt $1,037,877 $5,254,713 $ 10,094,441 $10,094,441 3 x Appellant’s equity (1.e. permitted debt under s. 18(4)) $202,446 $300 $300 $300 1984 1985 1986 1987 Amount the Appellants debt exceeds the permitted debt $835,431 $5,254,413 $10,094,141 $10,094,141 Interest paid to Ace and Worlds $76,967 $550,332 $271,452 $64,923 Interest deduction disallowed $61,967 $550,330 $271,443 $64,921 Interest deduction allowed $15,017 $2 $9 $2 The Appellant objected to the reassessments for each year on the basis that the Ministers disallowance of the interest deductions was not permitted under the terms of the Canada-U.S. ... Chen noted the emphasis on debt financing in the Appellants capital structure: Q: And you say, It appears that the arrangement is same as unrelated persons and then in bold letter, you say, ™ EXCEPT FOR THE STRUCTURE OF CAPITAL. ...

During the 1975 taxation year the blackmobile was used in connection with a number of construction projects carried out by the respondent on the mainland side of the Canso Causeway — at Antigonish, Mulgrave, Cape George and on the old Antigonish Road leading to the Strait of Canso — as well it was on the Cape Breton side between Port Hastings and Port Haw- kesbury and at Port Malcolm. ... Newton, Chambers & Co. Ltd., [1901] A.C. 49 (H.L.) at 53; The City of West Toronto and Toronto R.W. ...

Banque des Marchands de Moscou (unre ported), C.A. 1930, cited in Re Claim by Helbert Wagg & Co. ... A debt due from a bank to a customer, for instance, is deemed by the general law to be situated at the branch where the account is kept, Clare & Co. v. ... Richardson, [1927] P. 228. 6 Re Claim by Helbert Wagg & Co. Ltd, [1956] Ch. 323; [1956] 1 All E.R. 129.* The identical passage, which was relied upon by Thurlow, A.C.]., appears in the 7th edition. ...

Nitikman Fraser & Beatty Barristers and Solicitors 1040 West Georgia Street, 15th Floor Vancouver, British Columbia V6E 4H38 Dear Mr. Nitikman: Re: Allison Burnet Social Insuranc e Number [xxx xxx xxx] In response to your letter, dated August 3, 1994, with respect to the above- named taxpayer, the writer hereby further confirms that: • If the final outcome of Peter Burnet’s appeal from the assessment for the 1987 taxation year results in a loss, on account of income, on the disposition of the property (the “Property”) which was jointly owned by that person and the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s share, whether it be one- half or otherwise as the case may be, of such loss would be taken into consideration in determining the taxpayer’s non-capital loss for the 1987 taxation year and a Notice of Determination of such non-capital loss would be issued accordingly. • However, even though the taxpayer may have a non-capital loss for the 1987 taxation year as referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph, the taxpayer’s 1987 taxation year is statute-barred from reassessment, and the taxpayer’s share of any income loss on the disposition of the Property cannot be taken into consideration in computing her income, taxable income and tax payable for that year unless the Minister of National Revenue exercises his discretion to do so pursuant to the provisions of subsection 152(4.2) of the Income Tax Act. ...

., [1977] C.T.C. 168, 77 D.T.C. 5154, Addy, J. had this to say with regard to the meaning to be given to the word “structural” in the phrase “structural building sections" found in paragraph 26(4)(b) of the Act. [3] He said at pages 168-69 (D.T.C. 5155): In the context of sub-para, (b) above it is clear that the word structural” in the expression “ structural building sections" does not bear its usual general meaning of "pertaining to a structure” as the latter word is used in the same paragraph in the expression "any building or structure": it does not merely qualify a component as forming part of a structure or building but, much more restrictively, as being one of the components which inter-connected, ensure [ensures] that a building has a certain weight or load-bearing capacity or which, in other words, contribute substantially to its strength and solidarity and permit it to resist the various forces created by man and nature to which it might be subjected. ... Although the French version of paragraphs 26(4)(b) and (d) is [sic] at variance with one another ("éléments porteurs" and "acier de construction ouvré pour bâtiments”), the identical word “ structural” found in both paragraphs of the English version should govern the matter. ... The position of the Minister of National Revenue, however, based on the same code, is reflected in his notice of decision dated January 29,1988: [5] The word “ structural” within the meaning of paragraph 26(4)(d) of the Act, as it read at the time, does not bear its usual meaning of "pertaining to a structure”, but rather it qualifies a building material as having certain load-bearing capacity or which, in other words, contributes substantially to the strength and solidarity of the building and is designed and manufactured primarily for the purpose of resisting loads. ...

According to Dickson, C.J. at page 126 (S.C.R. 48; D.T.C. 5065): ”... neither the Income Tax Act nor the weight of judicial authority permits the courts to ignore the direct use to which a taxpayer puts borrowed money. ... What was said by Dickson, C.J. in the extract cited above was that ”... the taxpayer must satisfy the Court that his or her bona fide purpose in using the funds was to earn income.” ... But in final terms, what was said by Dickson, C.J. at page 129 (S.C.R. 55; D.T.C. 5067) in Bronfman Trust, governs the present case: ”... the courts must deal with what the taxpayer actually did, and not what he might have done, Matheson v. ...

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. ... In view of these provisions and the decisions of the Privy Council in McHugh v Union Bank, of the Supreme Court in Smith & Rhuland Ltd v The Queen Ex Rel Brice Andrews et al [6], and of this Court in The Queen v Stevenson Construction Co Ltd [7], I am of the opinion that the authority of subsection 44(1) to make refunds is permissive and leaves the authority charged with its administration with a discretion whether or not to grant the refund. ...