Search - 屯门 安南都护府

Briggs, the appellant, on October 1, 1947, entered into partnership with other members of the chartered accountants firm known as Gunderson, Stokes, Peers, Walton & Company, whose business operations were carried on in the City of Vancouver. ... The income of a taxpayer for a taxation year for the purposes of this Part is his income for the year from all sources inside 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. ” It was argued, if I remember well, that: ‘‘... income for the year from all (a) businesses...’’ excluded profits distributed outside the fiscal or taxation year they were earned. ... In other words, on dissolution of a partnership an outgoing partner has the right to receive not as in the case of a shareholder in winding-up a company only a share of the assets, but to receive payment of his profits, profits which were his before dissolution and do not cease to be his on dissolution ” For the reasons preceding, the income tax levied for taxation year 1951, on the sum of $3,255.51 received by appellant, was made conformably to law; the appeal is therefore dismissed and respondent is entitled to taxable costs. ...

Godin, Godin, Mehnert & Prud’homme, 1155 Dorchester Blvd., West, Room 808, Montreal, P.Q.’’. ... Godin, Godin, Mehnert & Prud’homme and directing the Sheriff to recover from them. ... The assessment was addressed to ‘‘ Administrators’’ without naming them. ...

Barnardo’s in Canada was done was in 1960 when an audited report for the year ended December, 1959 was done by Clarkson, Gordon & Company. Neither Clarkson, Gordon & Company nor any other accounting firm in Canada did any accounting work for Dr. ... It bought securities in Canada through Wood, Gundy & Co., brokers, on specific instructions from time to time of the London, England, brokers of this appellant. ...

Subject to the other provisions of this Part, income for a taxation year from a business or property is the profit therefrom for the year.’’ and Section 139(1) (e) defines “business” as follows: “139. (1) In this Act, (e) ‘business’ includes a profession, calling, trade, manufacture or undertaking of any kind whatsoever and includes an adventure or concern in the nature of trade but does not include an office or employment. ’ ’ In my opinion, the assumption on which the Minister based his inclusion of the amount of $5,266 in the assessment appealed against was not warranted. ...

Finally, the last item was the small sum received on the liquidation of the Chosen Corporation, which was of no significance, because that was a sum which the company had no option to refuse, and which came to it, so to speak, without any active decision on the part of the company. ’ ’ In that case it was apparent that the first two sales of the shares were made for simple realization motives alone and in the third case the company whose shares were held had gone into liquidation and the realization was brought about without any decision by the taxpayer. ...

Sundry Inventories Supplies 358.69 Fuel 50.00 Finished Goods 398.40 Bottles & Cases 3,031.80 3,838.89 C. ... Trucks & Equipment 1,486.00 Less allowance for depreciation 1,485.00 1.00 K. Furniture & Fixtures 1,436.85 Less allowance for depreciation 517.16 919.69 F. ...

He was a partner in Sponsors & Co., a registered partnership, which operated a dance hall business at the Masonic Temple at 888 Yonge Street in Toronto. ... He had also joined a partnership in the Eglington Radio & Furniture Company and had also had an interest in the Ingersoll Planing Mill & Lumber Company. ... The facts establish that in 1957 the appellant had two sources of income other than farming, namely, his investments and his interest in the dance hall business operated by Sponsors & Co., of which he was a partner. ...

The cost of moving her furnishings into the premises following her eviction— 40 These four items were set forth by the appellant in her return under the heading of ‘‘ Loss Incurred by Eviction of the House.’’ ... In my view none of the losses and expenditures claimed by the appellant as a deduction under Section 12(1) (a) satisfy the test expressed by Lord Davey in Strong & Co. ... Woodifield, [1906] A.C. 448 at p. 453, as follows: “ It is not enough that the disbursement is made in the course of, or arises out of, or is connected with the trade, or is made out of profit of the trade. ...

., 1927, e. 97 and amend- / ments thereto), by Mary Morris, widow of Alexander F. ... Riddell was senior partner in the firm of Riddell, Stead, Graham & Hutchison, chartered accountants, of Montreal. ... This sum was paid by Riddell, Stead, Graham & Hutchi- son to the Royal Trust Company and the latter kept it, treating it as an accretion to the capital. ...

He contented himself with a principal attack on the Minister’s net worth calculations — being that he had over $20,000 in currency in a trunk at the beginning of the period and not merely the $3,800 allowed by the Minister — and some rather subsidiary attacks. ... While I do not think that, in these cases, one should be to suspicious of testimony by the taxpayer that supports his case — because:frequently it will be the only testimony available to him — in this case, the appellant must be assumed to have had a much better knowledge of his affairs, as they then were, when he took that affidavit than he has now many years later. ...