Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

(e) That upon assessing the Appellant for 1967 he has properly computed in the under-stated manner the deduction to which the Appellant is entitled in respect of the capital cost of property used for the purpose of gaining income from farming in that year: Capital cost allowance claimed $4,710.04 Less: capital cost allowance for period 1st January to 24th June, 1967 175 X $5,778.37 — 2,770.45 365 Amount of claim disallowed upon assessment $1,939.59 (f) That upon assessment for 1968 he has properly disallowed $5,392.16 claimed as farming expenses and capital cost allowance on property used in the business of farming because the Appellant was not carrying on the business of farming, nor in fact carrying on any business upon or with respect to the heretofore mentioned 117 acres of property at Clinton in British Columbia in that year. and in the reply, the respondent also stated, inter alia, that: (a) the amount of capital cost allowance deductible by the Appellant for 1967 under the provisions of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section 11 of the said Act has been properly determined in accordance with the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of Income Tax Regulation 1700, because the property in respect of which capital cost allowance was claimed was used for the purpose of gaining income from farming for only part of the Appellant’s 1967 fiscal year. ...

Martland J. said for the Court (at p 30): “... the respondent submitted that a function is of a judicial or quasi-judicial character when the exercise of it effects the extinguishment or modification of private rights or interests in favour of another person, unless a contrary intent clearly appears from the statute. ...

One further exhibit, a book entitled / comunisti a Torino 1919-1972, was received as Exhibit 9. ...

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the respondent Minister and everyone under his direction and control be, and he is and they are prohibited from continuing with collection proceedings or actions against the applicant until it is lawful and fair to do — one certain criterion for which being lawful assessment of Part VIII tax actually found and assessed to be owing, upon assessment of tax in regard to applicant’s filed return for its taxation year ended February 28, 1986. ...

. — [Emphasis mine and the author's] When I look at the comparative uniformity of Canadian Statute law in relation to search and seizure provisions I find that now in almost every case the word “reasonable” is used and not the words “reasonable and probable”. ... I acknowledge that the word is used again, four years later, in Simmons, which purports to summarize Hunter, but five years earlier in Coopers & Lybrand, the word "probable" was not mentioned. ... This argument relates to the warrants which were issued allowing searches to be made of the offices of Baron & Abrams (barristers and solicitors) and Baron & Merton (chartered accountants). ...

During the period from 1962 to 1 April 1969, the Plaintiff expended. the following sums in furtherance of the business of exploration carried out by him: 1962 $ 6,500.00 1963 1,122.09 1964 908.96 1965 6,257.07 1966 19,811.09 1967 60,795.80 1968 6,953.95 1969 2,862.05 1970 1,208.60 $106,019.61 4. ... More conclusively I cannot accept the proposition that the company carried on a hobby as agent for the plaintiff for to do so would be to disregard the very concept of the nature of a corporation laid down in Salomon v Salomon & Co, [1897] 2 AC 22, where Lord Hershell said at page 42:... I am at a loss to understand what is meant by saying that A Salomon & Company Limited is but an “alias” for A Salomon. ...

The plaintiff is also authorized under its Memorandum of Association to carry out the following activities: — to invest and deal with the monies of the Company not immediately required in such a manner as from time to time may be determined; — to take over, manage and dispose of in any manner whatsoever, any business or undertaking in which the Company, may be interested or in the securities of which it may have invested its funds or with which it may have business relations; — to buy or otherwise acquire and hold, sell and deal in real property and personal property of all kinds and rights, in particular lands,... business or industrial concerns and undertakings, mortgages or charges on personal property,... securities... book debts Terry Summach (Terry S.) and his immediate family own fifty per cent of Flexi-Coil’s shares and his uncle, Ken Summach (Ken S.) and his immediate family own the other fifty per cent. ...

In James Richardson & Sons Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [7] Wilson J., relying on Canadian Bank of Commerce v. ... (as he then was) in Canada (Director of Investigation &. Research, Combines Investigation Branch) v. ... I turn to the first of the “Wigmore Rules” — the documents must originate in a confidence that they will not be disclosed. ...

They accepted a strategy proposed by Goldman Sachs & Co. of New York City which utilized a so-called “Kiwi Loan”. ... The net proceeds to Shell were NZ$151,875,000, after paying a commission to Goldman Sachs & Co. of NZ$1,125,000. 5 The second part of the plan involved a Master Forward Agreement with Sumitomo Bank Ltd. ... He stated: With respect to all of the bargains made on May 10, 1988 and related matters done subsequently I find: (i) that the parties were dealing with each other at arm's length; (ii) that Shell did not carry on business in New Zealand and had no intention of using the NZ$ in its business; (iii) that Shell was seeking US$ in the order of $102,000,000 to be used for its general corporate purposes; (iv) the decision to borrow the NZ$, the issuing of the debentures and the entering into the hedging transactions were based on Shell's expectation that in computing its income it could successfully deduct the interest paid under the debentures, that the US$21,165,000 gain would be accepted as being on capital account and that certain of its capital losses then existing could be set off against that gain; (v) that Shell would not have entered into the debenture agreements in the absence of the hedging transactions; (vi) that the rate of interest of 15.40% per annum in relation to the borrowing of NZ$ was a market established rate; (vii) that if Shell had simply borrowed US$102,000,000 at a market rate of interest, the rate would have been in the order of 9.1 % per annum which, of course, is substantially lower than 15,40% per annum; (viii) that Shell's overriding purpose in entering into the debenture agreements and the hedging transactions was to secure US$ at the lowest after tax cost attainable; (ix) that on May 10, 1988 Shell knew that on May 10, 1993 it would realize a gain of US$21,165,000 in respect of the debentures and hedging transactions; (x) that sham was not involved in respect of any of the bargains. ...

Following the amendments in chapter 63 of S of C 1970-71-72 sections 18(l)(a) and 18(2) read as follows: 18. (1) In computing the income of a taxpayer from a business or property no deduction shall be made in respect of (a) General limitation — an outlay or expense except to the extent that it was made or incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income from the business or property. 18. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph 20(1)(c), in computing the taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from a business or property, no deduction shall be made in respect of any amount paid or payable by the taxpayer in the year and after 1971 as, on account or in lieu of payment of, or in satisfaction of, (a) interest on borrowed money used to acquire land, or on an amount payable by him for land, or (b) property taxes (not including income or profits taxes or taxes computed by reference to the transfer of property) paid or payable by him in respect of land to a province or a Canadian municipality, if, having regard to all the circumstances, including the cost to the taxpayer of the land in relation to his gross revenue, if any, therefrom for that or any previous year, the land cannot reasonably be considered to have been, in that year, (c) included in the inventory of a business carried on by the taxpayer, (d) otherwise used in, or held in the course of, carrying on a business carried on by the taxpayer, or (e) held primarily for the purpose of gaining or producing income of the taxpayer from the land for that year, except to the extent that the taxpayer’s gross revenue, if any, from the land for that year exceeds the aggregate of all other amounts deducted in computing his income from the land for that year. ... Plaintiffs action will therefore be maintained with costs and the reassessment made for defendant’s 1974 taxation year is restored. 1 *The return shows a figure of $580,522 but the parties agree that $495,765 is the correct figure. 2 f There is a $1 discrepancy here which is not significant. 3 * Section 10 is the section dealing with evaluation of inventory property and paragraph 20(1)(aa) permits deduction (notwithstanding paragraph 18(l)(a)) of “an amount paid by the taxpayer in the year for the landscaping of grounds around the building or other structure of the taxpayer that is used by him primarily for the purpose of gaining or producing income therefrom or from a business’’. ...