Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

In general the whole tenor of the act and the intention which it sufficiently expresses are considered, rather than the ordinary acceptation of particular words, in order t to determine whether there 1 is substitution or not. ’ ’ In a typical affair: Lussier v. ... A correlation of five articles in the Quebec Civil Code allows for no other conclusion; those articles read as hereunder: ‘ 4 933. ... But, again, it does seem impossible to read even a shade of a restriction in the plain words of clause IX: “... ...

Section 59 sets out the duties of the Minister as follows: " " 59. ... Section 66 then sets out the Court's appellate jurisdiction as follows: " " 66. ... All the Court is concerned with is the correctness of the ‘‘assessment under appeal. ’ ’ That question is solely a judicial one. ...

" ‘ Provided, second, after the adoption of the said new name the HUDSON BAY FUR COMPANY shall have the right for a maximum period ending December 31, 1946 to use and only to use in combination with said new name the clause " ‘ Formerly Hudson Bay Fur Company ’ ’ and where the words ‘‘ Hudson ’ ’ and "Bay” of said clause are displayed in extent and prominence no greater than the said new name. ... " " Accordingly, revised assessments will be issued in due course in respect to the 1936 and 1938 fiscal periods of your company. ‘ ‘ A notice of assessment dated October 2, 1940, for the year 1938 was filed as exihibit 9. ... Staveley Coal & Iron Co. [1928] 2 K.B. 405 applied. ° Decision of Rowlatt, J. affirmed.” ...

" " In any such case a reference to the Board of Referees shall not be made, notwithstanding the provisions of sec. 5 of this Act.’’ ... The Crown’s appeal will, therefore, be allowed, and the British American Tobacco Co.’s appeal will be dismissed with costs. ’ ’ This judgment was upheld in the Court of Appeal, reported in [1941] 2 All E.R. 561. ... It should be noted that the words in the section are ‘‘a controlling interest ‘ ‘ not ‘‘the controlling interest ‘‘or’’ the control ’. ...

I am of the opinion, however, that the words "‘annual net profits or gain ‘ ‘ in the second line of the definition refer to income whether ascertained or unascertained; and as the word source is used in line 18 it could be argued that it refers to all the following subsections of clause 1 of Section 3 and that the various classifications therein detailed are given as sources of income rather than items of taxable income. ... Rogers (1926), 11 T.C. 508; Robert Addie & Sons Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioner, [1924] S.C. 231 at 235. ... In the absence of any such provision in our Act I cannot give effect to the argument of the appellant’s counsel that it should be allowed to members of Parliament and members of Legislatures in Canada, although, as he urges, it might well be considered ‘ " fair and just. ’ ’ My attention was also directed by counsel for the respondent to section 75(2) of our Act, giving the Minister power to make regulations necessary for carrying the Act into effect, etc. and to authorize the Commissioner to exercise such of his powers in that regard as could in the opinion of the Minister be conveniently exercised by the Commissioner. ...

The appellant sold the following number of lots in the years indicated: 1955 — 5 lots 1959 —11 lots 1956 — 23 “* 1960 — 12 °° 1957 — 18 “ 1961 — 10 “* 1958 — 10 “ 1962— 7 “ In his testimony the appellant frankly stated that it was his hope and intention to sell every lot in the subdivisions excepting his own home. ... C.R. 40; [1951] C.T.C. 322, Thorson, P. said, “... the Court must be careful before it decides that a series of profits, each one of which would by itself have been a capital gain, has become profit or gain from a business. ... It follows that the appeal is dismissed with costs. 1 * 3, The income of a taxpayer for a taxation year for the pur poses of this Part is his income for the year from all sources in side or outside Canada and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes income for the year from all (a) businesses, (b) property, and (c) offices and employments. 4. ...

That is where several words are followed, as here, by a general expression (such as ‘‘or other body and any corporate body >,>), that expression is not limited to the last particular unit of the group, but applies to them all. ... At p. 109 of the Exchequer Court Reports (1925) the trial judge prefaces his decision by stating: ‘ " Every person ordinarily resident in Canada is liable to income tax.’’ ... Words, which are equally consistent with the absence of such an intention, are not sufficient. ‘ ‘ All of this is quite apposite to the present case. ...

Basically the Minister’s case is that the appellant is not entitled to the capital cost allowance claimed because the patent cost the appellant nothing but the legal expenses of obtaining it and in support of this position he challenged the evidence that the expenses in question were incurred and submitted that even if they or some portion of them were incurred they did not constitute any part of the ‘ ‘ cost ’ ’ or the ‘ ‘ capital cost ’ ’ or the ‘ actual capital cost’’ of the patent within the meaning of these expressions as used in the Income Tax Act and the Regulations made pursuant thereto. ... By Section 12(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, it is provided that in computing income, no deduction shall be made in respect of an outlay, loss or replacement of capital, a payment on account of capital or an allowance in respect of depreciation, obsolescence or depletion except as expressly permitted by Part I of the Act but by Section 11(1) (a) it is also provided that: “11. (1) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a), (b) and (h) of subsection (1) of section 12, the following amounts may be deducted in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year: (a) such part of the capital cost to the taxpayer of property, or such amount in respect of the capital cost to the taxpayer of property, if any, as is allowed by regulation;” Section 1100(1) (c) of the Income Tax Regulations as applicable to the year 1954 provided that: “1100. (1) Under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 11 of the Act, there is hereby allowed to a taxpayer, in computing his income from a business or property, as the case may be, deductions for each taxation year equal to (c) such amount as he may claim in respect of a property of class 14 in Schedule B not exceeding the lesser of (i) the amount for the year obtained by apportioning the capital cost to him of the property equally over the life of the property remaining at the time the cost was incurred, or (ii) the undepreciated capital cost to him as of the end of the taxation year (before making any deduction under this subsection for the taxation year) of property of the class;’’ Schedule B, Class 14 reads in part as follows: ‘ ‘ Schedule B CLASS 14 Property that is a patent, franchise, concession or licence for a limited period in respect of property...” ... That subsection provides that in the case of property held at the commencement of the 1949 taxation year, for the purposes of regulations made under Section 11(1) (a) of the Act, the property (in this case the patent) ‘‘ shall be deemed to have been acquired at the commencement of the year at a capital cost equal to the actual capital cost’’ less the amount therein mentioned. ...

Counsel for the respondent submits, however, that that amendment was a recognition by Parliament that ‘‘one person’’ was not equivalent to a ‘ ‘ a person ’ ’ and that therefore it was necessary to change the language to support the construction of the section now put forward by the appellant. ... consisted of one person and others in which ‘ 1 the original owner ’ ’ comprised two or more persons. ... For these reasons I have reached the conclusion that the intention of Parliament, as I conceive it to be, is better effectuated by giving to the words ‘‘une personne’’ in the French version, the meaning of ‘‘a person’’, rather than by construing the words 4 ‘ one person ’ ’ in the English version as one person only. ...

The Order (part of Ex. 7) recites in part:— " " Isabella Steed, who was also known as Bonnie I. ... The will provided: ‘ " All my property of whatsoever kind and wherever situated I give, devise and bequeath to the said J. ... It was not, therefore, until 1928 that the consent of the main pecuniary legatee having been obtained, the three minor pecuniary legatees were paid. ‘ ‘ " " On the 10th of August in that year, the legacy to the testator’s niece, Mattie Martindale, was paid in the sum of $3,247.85, representing principal of $2,500.00 and accrued interest. ...