Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

. \ ...

The relevant part of Rule 302 here is the part that provides that “... non-compliance with any of these Rules... shall not render any proceeding void unless the Court shall so direct, but such proceedings may be set aside either wholly or in part as irregular, or amended, or otherwise dealt with in such manner and upon such terms as the Court shall think fit”. ...

In my opinion the effect of the 1962 amendment in question was not retrospective in enacting that in future taxation years* [2] certain new taxation rules should apply, which referred to and were defined by the circumstances and effect of past transactions, that is to say, as applied to this case, the transaction by which the appellant’s property was acquired by the Sharpies Oil Corporation in 1960 — a transaction which in that taxation year involved no tax consequence at all. ...

., [1968] S.C.R. 140; [1968] C.T.C. 44; 68 D.T.C. 5001, is as follows: “... the production of articles for use from raw or prepared material by giving to these materials new forms, qualities and properties or combinations whether by hand or machinery. ...

It is said that the expenditure was part and parcel of the fundamental financial arrangements — the basic capital transactions — by which the respondent was established, and that the Construction Contract, the Pulp Contract, and the Steam Contract constituted the basis on which it was to operate. ... The parts of that agreement, which are material for present purposes, are as follows: WHEREAS the Settlor will be entitled to a voting trust certificate representing 99,986 common shares in the capital stock of Mount Royal Paving & Supplies Limited; AND WHEREAS the ettior desires to establish a trust respecting the said voting trust certificate as hereinafter set forth; AND WHEREAS the foregoing recitals are made by the Settior and not by the Trustee; NOW THEREFORE THIS INDENTURE WITNESSETH that in consideration of the sum of one dollar by each of the parties hereto to the other paid, the receipt whereof by each of the parties is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. ... There is no dispute € as to the facts. The Minister has added the value of the corpus of the Trust to the value of the estate passing under the will and takes the position that that corpus is property passing on the death of the deceased or property deemed to pass on the death of the deceased pursuant to subclause (viii) of clause (p) of section 1 [now subclause 1 (r)(x)] of the Act. ...

For that purpose it borrowed money and lent it to the subsidiaries at a rate 1 Vi % in excess of that which it paid. ... As Kerwin J, as he then was, pointed out in Montreal Light Heat & Power Consolidated v MNR, [1942] CTC 1; 2 DTC 535, applying the principle enunciated by Viscount Cave in British Insulated and Helsby Cables, Limited v Atherton, the usual test of whether an expenditure is one made on account of capital is, was it made ‘‘with a view of bringing into existence an advantage for the enduring benefit of the appellant’s business’’. ...

In Cornwall v Ottawa & New York Railway (1915), 52 SCR 466, Chief Justice Duff held: It is a long settled rule that a given subject is not to be held to be a subject of taxation unless the intention to include it among the subjects of taxation is expressed in “clear and unambiguous language’’. ... The option was exercised and a P & NG Lease dated December 20, 1947, was granted by Hamula to Naylor and Michelberry. ...

It follows that a corporate non-resident which has no income derived from Canadian sources, is not required to compute its taxable income, as that word is defined, supra, and, thus, has no need to utilize the deductions permitted by Division C, including those permitted under paragraph 111 (1)(a) — non-capital losses. ...

(v) 173235 retained the unsecured debt (variously described as $1,281,110 or $1,150,000 — the precise amount is not material) previously owed by 860 to Central Trust Company. ...

Rolls Ct.) as cited by the Supreme Court in James Richardson & Sons Ltd. v. ...