Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

In the case of British Insulated & Helsby Cables Ltd. v. Atherton, [1926] A.C. 205, Lord Cave, dealing with the question of what would constitute a capital expenditure, says (p. 213, in fine): "But when an expenditure is made, not only once and for all, but with a view to bringing into existence an asset or an advantage for the enduring benefit of a trade, I think that there is very good reason (in the absence of special circumstances leading to an opposite conclusion) for treating such an expenditure as properly attributable not to revenue but to capital....”? ... Samuel Jones & Co. (Devondale) Ltd. v. C.I.K., supra. 4. That to allow a deduction in full as an operating expense of an outlay such as this which brought into existence a new capital asset would be to frustrate the clear intent of the provisions of Section 11(1) (a) of the Act and the regulations passed thereunder in regard to capital cost allowances. 5. ...

The relevant sections are Income Tax Act, Section 12(1) (a): ‘ 12. (1) In computing income, no deduction shall be made in respect of (a) 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 property or a business of the taxpayer,” Section 11(1) (a): “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;” and Section 1102(1) (c) of the Regulations: “1102. (1) The classes of property described in this Part and in Schedule B shall be deemed not to include property (c) that was not acquired by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income,’’ In order to come within Section 1102(1) (ce) of the Regulations the buildings and equipment must have been acquired ‘‘for the purpose of gaining or producing income”. ... Clark & Son Limited v. M.N.R., 18 Tax A.B.C. 196; William Pitt Hotel Limited v. ...

Fraser & Co. Lid. v. M.N.R., [1949] A.C. 24; [1948] C.T.C. 297. The above principle was held by the House of Lords in the following words: “The provision in s. 5, sub-s. 1(a) of the Dominion Income War Tax Act, R.S.C. 1927, ce. 97, as amended by s. 10 of c. 34 of 8.C. 1940, that the Minister may make under the head of ‘depletion’ ‘such an allowance for the exhaustion of the... timber limits as he may deem just and fair,’ confers on him a discretion to determine whether the case before him is one for making any allowance at all and does not limit his discretion to determining the extent of the allowance to be made. ... C.R. 98; [1953] C.T.C. 203, where the Honourable President of the Court held that ‘*,.. the first proviso to section 6(n) of the Act set a top limit to the total amount of deductions in respect of depreciation that could be allowed in the case of assets acquired under the circumstances of controlling interest specified in it and while it does not direct the Minister to base his allowance of deductions in respect of the depreciation cf such assets on their cost to their former owner there is nothing in the proviso or elsewhere that precludes him from using such a base.” ...

He says, however, that he was forced to sell it and in the Notice of Appeal to this Court the reason assigned is stated as—‘ ‘ To raise funds for the completion and the expansion of the ‘Jack and Jill’ business and to pay for stock-in-trade.’’ ... Upon the completion of the Evanoff building in 1948, the appellant found that he could now enter the retail business; accordingly, he leased the property from Evanoff and with one of his brothers, opened a children’s wear store known as ‘‘ Jack and Jill”. ...

(c) That the amount opposite ‘‘Cash on Hand & in Bk.” on the said balance sheet was improperly stated. ... $ If the total value of such gifts exceeded $4,000, complete and file a gift tax return on or before 30th April, 1950. ...

I also find it difficult to regard either the appellants alone or SIP alone as the recipients, for the purposes of Section 106, of \ the interest paid by City Park and it seems to me that in truth \the recipient was the three of them, or perhaps more precisely, in respect of each payment, SIP and the particular appellant to whom the interest payment was remitted. ... But it appears to me on the evidence that SIP and the appellants acted in concert in establishing the fund and in organizing its investments and while neither appellant alone controlled $ I P to my mind it is not conceivable as a practical possibility that SIP would or could disregard the instructions or wishes of the appellants or either of them as to the voting of City Park stock or as to what City Park should do or that they would not combine their voting power in SI P itself to enforce their will if occasion to do so arose whether with respect to these pari passu ranking and somewhat interdependent loans or any other matters of concern to them. ...

To this end the directors and shareholders made an offer in December 1960 to purchase 50% of the shares of DeSpirt Mosaic & Marble Co., Limited (hereinafter referred to as DeSpirt) and its subsidiary Hydro-Silica Cleaning Company Limited. ... He said that the construction of a plant on the Scarborough land was frustrated because of the heavy financial commitments in DeSpirt, the appellants ’ own declining profit position and its loss of adequate working capital with the resultant pressure from the appellants’ bank to reduce Bestpipe’s obligation to the bank through the sale of the Scarborough land which was done because the combined pressure of the foregoing circumstances was irresistible but totally unforeseen by the appellants when the land was first acquired. ...

A la page 58, le Président Thorson dit: “... The right to deduct losses does not extend to a profit from an activity other than the business in which the loss was sustained. ... When the former tenants vacated, substantial repairs were made to the building and it appears to have been rented from about January 1, 1953, at $1,500 per month, to Locke Gray & Co., a firm with which Mr. ...

It was argued that the words ‘‘are imported’ ‘ in section 41, when used with regard to goods, cannot refer to goods that have been imported but must refer only to goods that are being imported, and that the words ‘‘the value so determined shall, until otherwise provided, be the value upon which the duty on such goods shall be computed and levied’’ clearly contemplate future use of the determination. ... When goods subject to tax under this Part or under Part • Al of this Act arc* sold at a price.... ...

The agreement with Mercer, Lauder & Company to purchase the bonds, debentures and stock of the appellant was actually entered into on May 31, 1950. ...