Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

Results 13521 - 13530 of 13546 for 哈尔滨到北京 公里数
TCC

Pozzebon v. R., [1998] 3 CTC 2902, 98 DTC 1940

. The words “prevent” and “prévenir” mean the same: to stop an event from happening before it happens. ...
TCC

Grigg v. R., [1998] 4 CTC 2758, 99 DTC 188

Robertson J.A. categorized the reported cases into two categories: those that deal with “inside directors” and those that deal with “outside directors” At page 263 (5416-17), he states: [...] it is difficult to deny that inside directors, meaning those involved in the day-to-day management of the company and who influence the conduct of its business affairs, will have the most difficulty in establishing the due diligence defence. ...
TCC

Canwest Broadcasting Ltd. v. The Queen, 96 DTC 1375, [1995] 2 CTC 2780 (TCC)

The appellant produced cases, uncontested by the respondent, which have held interest expense to be deductible where the interest expense exceeds the income from property (Alberta & Southern Gas Co. v. ...
TCC

Husky Oil Ltd. v. The Queen, 95 DTC 316, [1995] 1 CTC 2184 (TCC), aff'd 95 DTC 5244 (FCA)

("Allarco '); and (c) 840 owned all of the issued shares of 348841 Alberta Ltd. ...
TCC

Wheeliker v. R., 98 DTC 1110, [1998] 1 CTC 2021 (TCC)

These concerns arose from a series of events, including (a) his inability to cause the $20,000 cheque to be sent to Revenue Canada; (b) his failure to supply accurate statements showing the financial condition of the Corporation; (c) the fact that without Board authorization Jardine hired his wife as an employee of the Corporation; (d) his authorization to pay the sum of approximately $10,000 to Green, Haley & Pye for a restructuring report without receiving Board authorization; (e) his alleged verbal abuse of certain production employees of the Corporation; (f) his general habit of running the Corporation, making decisions and enforcing certain procedures without alerting the Board; and (g) his rosy projections of increased numbers of tourist buses and increased sales to customers, including a major customer, Jean Depot, which projections did not materialize. ...
TCC

Leigh v. The Queen, docket 96-2818-IT-G

Therefore, the maximum amount that could be assessed against the Appellant was $20,912 calculated as follows: Amount assessed under section 160 $52,662.30 Estimated value of the Appellant's shares according to evidence between $58,000 to $69,000 say    $63,500.00 One-half thereof to Mrs. ...
TCC

Legal v. M.N.R., docket 98-954-UI

In 1994- according to Records of Employment Exhibits R-4 and R-5- she worked 14 weeks for Doreen McMillan and 8 and 2/3 weeks for Almey. ...
TCC

Nova Corp. Of Alberta v. R., [1996] 1 CTC 2164, 95 DTC 599

At page 87 of his text Construction of Statutes (2nd ed. 1983), Driedger fittingly summarizes the basic principles: “... the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament”. ...
TCC

Robert Kondrat v. Her Majesty the Queen, [1995] 1 CTC 2630, 96 DTC 1566

David Pilkington, a chartered accountant and partner of Hudson & Company, Karon’s accountants, prepared a letter for Kondrat’s solicitor suggesting the shares of Karon in June 1985 "would be worth a value anywhere from $0 indicating the seismic data was worthless and the future earnings potential of the company is not very favourable to a value far exceeding the cost of the seismic data indicating that the seismic data is extremely valuable". ...
TCC

Melville Neuman v. Minister of National Revenue, [1992] 2 CTC 2074, 92 DTC 1652

Counsel for the respondent contended that the application of subsection 56(2) of the Act is supported by the following facts: (a) the dividend payment was not the product of a bona fide business relationship” (judgment of Dickson, C.J.C. at page 35), but was conceived as part of a tax avoidance plan; (b) the dividend payment was, in effect, a rerouting of monies from New- mac, in which the appellant's wife had no claim or entitlement, that would otherwise have been payable to the appellant; (c) the declaration of a dividend, although normally the function of a director, in this case was the fruit of the appellant's recommendations to his wife; (d) the declaration of the dividend to the appellant's wife from Melru was merely a temporary device for the redirection of the dividend, as the money was immediately lent back to the appellant by his wife on non-commercial terms; and (e) ”... there was no legitimate purpose to the dividend distribution” (judgment of Dickson, C.J. at page 35), within the meaning of the majority judgment in McClurg. ...

Pages