Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

See. 86(1) is in part as follows: * • There shall be imposed, levied and collected a consumption or sales tax of eight per cent on the sale price of all goods (a) produced or manufactured in Canada, payable by the producer or manufacturer at the time of the delivery of such goods to the purchaser thereof.’’ ... There is no particular significance in the word "‘retreading’’ and one can only say it is a very convenient and descriptive term to use, Just as the word ‘ " sole ‘ ‘ is used in respect of shoes. ... I cannot think that the words " ‘ manufacture, ‘ ‘ or ""goods,” mentioned in 87(c) include, or were intended to include, transactions of the nature which I am discussing, or that such transactions were intended to be treated as sales. ...

Item No. 23 on page 2 is headed "‘Gross Income from Rentals (give amount received from and address of each property ‘ ‘ and under this there is entered ‘ " net— as per statement attached’’ $2,179.42). ... Counsel for the appellant contended that the words "‘laid out or expended ‘ ‘ were referable to each of the words " " disbursements” and " " expenses. ” In my view, the words "‘laid out’’ are referable to the word "‘disbursements’’ and the word " ‘ex- pended’’ to the word ‘‘expenses.’’ ... The fact that the word 4 " incurred ’ ‘ is not used in the section strongly indicates that the expenses referred to are those that have been paid out. ...

I have even more difficulty with the question whether the remainder of the Unit — that is, the moveable things such as baskets, pans, ete. — are agricultural implements. When, however, I read Itc m 409f as a whole and find that, after enumerating such things as ‘ ‘ Barn... track ’ ’, egg cooling cabinets, hay stack forms, milk coolers, steel stanchions for confining livestock, and brooders, it concludes the enumeration by the words, ‘‘ All other agricultural implements or agricultural machinery’’, I feel constrained to conclude that ‘‘agricultural implements’’ is used in the very broadest of senses and includes almost any apparatus, utensils or instruments used for agricultural purposes. If that is the correct view, almost all, if not all, of the ‘‘Unit’’ (other than things that have been incorporated into the structure) that is not otherwise exempt is exempt as falling within the words ‘ other agricultural implements ’ ’. ...

To assist in explaining how this assessment was made, there is set out hereunder the first, the second, the ninth, and the tenth calculations, and the final computation made by the Minister by which he found the estate tax payable to be $1,132,929.08: “1st Calculation Aggregate Net Value $5,242,455.21 Exempt Section 7(1) (d) $2,261,847.64 — $600,212.95 (P.V.) 1,661,634.69 Net Value 3,580,820.52 Basic and Survivor Exemption 60,000.00 Aggregate Taxable Value $3,520,820.52 Tax on $3,520,820.52 i $1,637,743.08 Provincial Tax Credit Schedule A 813,011.58 Estate Tax $ 824,731.50 2nd Calculation Aggregate Net Value $5,242,455.21 Exempt Section 7(1) (d) $2,261,847.64 — 600,212.95 (P.V.) — 824,7 = 836,903.19 Net Value,. $4,405,552.02 Basic and Survivor Exemption 60,000.00 Aggregate Taxable Value $4,345,552.02 Tax on $4,345,552.02 $2,083,098.09 Provincial Tax Credit Schedule (B) 1,034,009.34 Estate Tax Payable,x__ $1,049,088.75 9th Calculation Aggregate Net Value $5,242,455.21 Exempt Section 7(1) (d) $2,261,847.64 — 600,212.95 — 1,132,897.61 — 528,737.08 Net Value Ï $4,713,718.13 Basic and Survivor Exemption i. 60,000.00 Aggregate Taxable Value $4,653,718.13 Tax on $4,653,718.13 $2,249,507.79 Provincial Tax Credit Schedule (J) 1,116,585.44 Estate Tax Payable $1,132,922.35 10th Calculation Aggregate Net Value $5,242,455.21 Exempt Section 7(1) (d) $2,261,847.64—600,212.95 (P.V.) —1,132,922.35:: 528,712.34 Net Value $4,713,742.87 Brought Forward $4,713,742.87 Basie and Survivor Exemption- — 60,000.00 Aggregate Taxable Value $4,653,742.87 Tax on $4,653,742.87... $2,249,521.14 Provincial Tax Credit Schedule (K) 1,116,592.06 Estate Tax $1,132,929.08 Final Computation Total Value of Estate as per ET.60 $5,072,540.45 Increase as per attached ET.85 229,778.55 $5,302,319.00 General Debts — $59,616.60 Add Additional Surrogate Court fees 471.00 Income Tax 1960 Year 683.46 $60,771.06 Less Income Tax Refund 1961 year $ 14.67 Disallow Interest on Nixon Note 892.60 907.27 59,863.79 Aggregate Net Value — — $5,242,455.21 Exempt Section 7(1) (d) $2,261,847.64 — 600,212.95 — 1,132,922.35 — 528,712.34 Net Value $4,713,742.87 Basie and Survivor Exemption 60,000.00 Aggregate Taxable Value $4,653,742.87 Tax on $4,653,742.87 $2,249,521.14 Provincial Tax Credit as per Schedule (K)-, — 1,116,592.06 Estate Tax Payable... $1,132,929.08” On this appeal the following cases were cited by counsel for the Minister in support of the assessment made in this matter: New York Central Railway v. ... Firstly, in a case such as this, Section 7(1) (d) only authorizes the deduction from the exemption portion of the ‘ combination ’ 1 of Ontario duty and estate tax, and until the figures for both Ontario duty and estate tax have been computed, it is not correct to make a deduction at all. ... Putting these two calculations, above referred to, in other words and inserting figures, they are as follows: 1st Calculation Aggregate Net Value $5,242,455.21 Less Exemptions 2,261,847.64 Net Value., 2,980,607.57 Less Basic and Survivor Exemptions. 60,000.00 Aggregate Taxable Value $2,920,607.57 Tax on $2,920,607.57 = $1,313,627.78 Less Provincial Tax Credit: (Value of assets which do not qualify for Provincial Tax Credit: $25,624.85) $2,980,607.57 —$3.61— $25,671.24 x $1,313,627.78 2 X = 651,167.13 2,980,607.57 Estate Tax Payable $ 662,460.65 2nd Calculation Aggregate Net Value $5,242,455.21 Less Exemptions: $2,261,847.64 — $600,212.95 — $662,460.65 (Estate Tax found in first cal- culation) 999,174.04 Net Value $4,243,281.17 Less Basic and Survivor Exemptions 60,000.00 Aggregate Taxable Value Oo_ $4,183,281.17 Tax on $4,183,281.17 $1,995,471.83 Less Provincial Tax Credit: (Value of assets which do not qualify for Provincial Tax Credit $30,658.50—computed:) $38,250.13 $38,250.63 — $600. ...

If the definition of 4 " income ‘ ‘ contained in the first paragraph of sec. 8 of the Income War Tax Act was apparently borrowed from The Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1914, ce. 195, s. 2(e), reproduced in substance although not literally in R.S.O. 1927, ¢. 238, s. 1(e), subsec. ... Gavit, 268 U.S. 161. ‘ " As held below, the bequest to Mrs. Whitehouse was not one to be paid from income but of a sum certain, payable at all events during each year so long as she should live. ... Here the gift did not depend upon income but was a charge upon the whole estate during the life of the legatee to be satisfied like any ordinary bequest. ‘ ‘ In the case of Helvering v. ...

According to Section 76(2), the appellant, in 1958, had the right to deduct. ‘ There may be deducted ’ an amount not exceeding the amount of the special payment minus the aggregate of the amounts that were deductible. ... It may well, for a particular ‘ ‘ exempt ’ ’ year, result in a loss that will be deductible in computing the taxable income for some other year in respect of which the respondent is not ‘‘exempt’’ under Section 62. I find further support for my view as to what was ‘ ‘ deductible ’ ’ under old Section 76 in computing income for a particular year in the fact that, when Parliament intended that amounts shall not be regarded as ‘‘deductible’’ to such an extent as to create a loss, it went to some pains to define the amount deductible as not exceeding what the income for the year would be if the deduction in question were not allowed. ...

With reference to the appellant’s appeal against the assessment of the profits which it made from the acquisition and dis- position of certain vacant lands, it appears that the appellant, which was incorporated in 1949, did acquire certain revenue producing properties which, for the purposes of this appeal it may be assumed, were acquired for the purpose of obtaining a rental revenue from them and, in addition, in 1953, it started acquiring farm properties near the Côte-de-Liesse Road on Montreal Island, some of which properties were disposed of by it in a manner that is sufficiently indicated by a statement entitled ° Reconciliation of Net Profit Re Sale of Land’’, which is attached to the notice of appeal and which reads as follows: RECONCILIATION OF NET PROFIT RE SALE OF LAND RE: EXPROPRIATION BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT— DEED 1106499 Date—Nov. 9/54 Expropriation Price $371,260.00 Cost of Land Sold—Purchased Oct. 21/52 $75,391,60 Cost of Land Sold—Purchased Oct. 31/52- 32,004.37 107,395.97 Net Profit_ $263,864.08 14 Time held re lot 525 as per deed 1106499—one year, 1 month and 28 days 44 Time held re lot 527 as per deed 1106499—one year, 2 months and 7 days RE SALE TO INNES EQUIPMENT LTD.— DEED 1109955 Date—Nov. 17/54 Selling Price — $ 50,180.20 Cost of Land Sold—Purchased Oct. 21/52 1- $ 5,206.23 Commission—Westmount Realties- 2,509.00 Notarial Fees 25.00 7,740.23 ” {.;: Net Profit — —- $. 42,439.97 Time held as per Deed 1109955—2 years, 27 days Lot 525! ... OF CANADA— DEED 1007182 Date—May 7, 1953 Selling Price. • $ 67,475.70 Cost of Land Sold—Purchased Oct. 31/52 $ 11,166.88 Commission to Morgan Realties Inc. 3,073.18 Notaries Fees-.. 75.00 Adjustment of Taxes n 24.75 16,640.41 [sic] Net Profit — ….- $ 52,835.29 Time held as per deed 1007182—6 months and 7 days: Lot 525 i RE SALE TO CANADIAN COMSTOCK CO. ... Notarial Fees — 1 250.00 36,788.49 Net Profit I $ 85,711.51 Time held as per deed 1091288—1 year, 9 months, 18 days. ...

Year Foot’s LeMarquand’s Stokes’ 1947 $ 5,452.50 $11,979.58 $11,565.24 1948 3,860.00 14,612.95 19,998.27 1949 15,092.00 14,101.37 17,854.58 1956 14,485.00 10,490.20 19,304.70 1951 — 14,310.00 29,394.52 25,020.00 $93,199.50 $80,578.62 $93,742.79 The two first sums, those of the respondent and of his accountant LeMarquand, attest respectively a difference of $40,543.29 and of $13,164.17 with that of the departmental re-assessments, Mr. ... Possibly, it may tax the imagination to conjecture a practical instance of what is meant by the residuary words * ‘ in any other case’’. ... Funk and Wagnall’s New Standard Dictionary, 1942 edition, defines the adjective ‘‘incorrect’’ as something ‘‘not in agreement with... (2) truth’’, whilst in Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, it is an assertion ‘ ‘ not in accordance with the truth; inaccurate; not exact; as, an incorrect (italics in the text) statement, narration or calculation’’ (italics added). ...

The exemption is repeated by sec. 14 of e. 12 of the Consolidated Statutes of Upper Canada, 1859, with the exception that the word " whatsoever ‛ is left out. ... Coming to 1881, it is found that the Legislature of Ontario passed an act to consolidate the Superior Courts, etc., (o. 5) and that by sec. 3 thereof the Court of Chancery is united and consolidated with other courts to constitute " " one Supreme Court of Judicature for Ontario’’. ... Cas. 136, wherein it was held that the powers conferred by that section upon the Provincial Legislatures of Ontario and Quebec to repeal or alter the statutes of the Old Parliament of Canada, are precisely co-extensive with the powers of " " direct legislation with which those bodies are invested by the other clauses of the Act of 1867.’’ ...

On the appeal to the Minister, the assessment was affirmed on the ground that the expenses sought to be deducted were 1938 expenses and not deductible from 1939 income under sec. 6(a) of the Income War Tax Act, R.S.C. 1927, c. 97, which reads: " " 6. ... Counsel for the appellant contended that there was nothing in sec. 6(a) defining the time of the term " " laid out or expended ’ ’; that if a disbursement or expense was wholly, exclusively and necessarily laid out or expended for the purpose of earning the income it was deductible from such income when it was laid out or expended; that the deduction was allowable by good accounting practice and that since it was not excluded by the section it should be allowed. ... ’ ’ This test was approved by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Tata Hydro Electric Agencies, Bombay v. ...