Search - 屯门 安南都护府

It follows, in effect, that Weiller & Williams Ltd. is financing the appellant’s cattle transactions and he is, in effect, operating a a feed lot. ... During the taxation years here under review, he employed MacKinnon, Repski & Co., a firm of certified public accountants at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. ... MacKinnon included in the appellant’s 1963 return three entries of livestock purchases by the appellant from Weiller & Williams Ltd. made by him in his farm account book for that year in the total amount of $30,306.51, but against which three items the appellant had noted "‘not deductible — on contract”. ...

This appears by Exhibit 2 (page 3), which is an extract from the respondent’s general ledger entitled: ‘‘ Account C. ... That this company having received from the Bank of Toronto payment in full of the said amount of $1,000,000.00 does hereby authorize the Crown Trust & Guarantee Co. to deliver to the Bank of Toronto such debentures for an amount of $1,000,000.00. That the President be and is hereby authorized to instruct the Crown Trust & Guarantee Company accordingly.’’ ...

The above five-acre parcel was sold as follows: (1) 1st July 1953 Sale of lots 1-8 block 1 plan 1120 to Engelhardt Stelzer for $3,390.00 Profit $ 3,021.40 (2) 2131: October, 1954 Sale of lots: 6 block 12 plan 1120 1-5 block 12 plan 1120 7-8 block 12 plan 1120 to Henry Schultz and Lloyd Richmond for $11,400.00 Profit $10,902.87 (3) 18th August 1955 Sale of lot 22 block 1 plan 1120 to Henry Schultz for $200.00 Profit $ 125.53 (4) 19th May 1957 Sale of lots 1-8 block 11 plan 1120 to Canadian Oil Companies Ltd. for $15,000.00 Profit $13,344.52 (5) 7th May 1958 Sale of lots 1-8 block 22 plan 1120 to Max Yale Diamond for $10,000.00 Share of Profit applicable to Estelle Diamond $ 4,655.60 One half of the profit realized from the sales of the above land only is applicable to Estelle Diamond of which $2,706.45 was assessed in 1955, $2,582.26 in 1956, $6,672.26 in 1957 and $3,711.05 in 1959. ... On July 7, 1958, Michael Shnier and Harold Diamond wrote to Sarah Diamond, c/o Nitikman & Nusgart, solicitors, referring to the agreement of October 1, 1954 between her and both of them and to the clauses contained in the agreement, advising her that they believed that Diamond Agencies Ltd. are desirous of purchasing the said land at the price of $1,250 per acre and we do hereby authorize and instruct you to execute in favor of the said Diamond Agencies Ltd., and to deliver to its solicitor, Max Yale Diamond... an option to purchase said lands for the price of one thousand two hundred and fifty ($1,250) dollars per acre, the option to be in such form and on such terms as you see fit...’’. The option which you are to grant will be from yourself and the two of us, and we will join in the execution of the said option ’ On October 9, 1958, Harold Diamond, Michael Shnier and Sarah Diamond wrote to Messrs. ...

Previous net income declared $ 7,329.62 Add: Profits Lot 106 MTL._. $18,036.15 Lot 101 & 99 MTL. 50,000.00 St. ...

Prior to selling the said house, it was appraised by independent appraisers at Hamilton Loan & Investment Company, of Sarnia, Ontario, at an appraised selling price of $20,012. ... Kinder (supra) at p. 692) ‘‘be treated as referable to services or as made to the employee in that capacity ’ ’ if the payment is motivated or caused by reasons of efficiency or even of mere compassion, In this vein, it should not be irrelevant to point out in passing, that if a certain class of taxpayers in this country are required, in order to earn their emoluments of office or of employment, to incur certain expenses, reimbursement of these expenses should not be considered as conferring benefits under Section 5(1) (a) of the Act. ...

This appeal raises the question of whether or not the appellant’s so-called No. 2 mine was a ‘‘mine’’ within the meaning of Section 83(5) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, ¢. 148. ... The MacLean Mining Company Limited (supra) at page 882 [267], viz.: Mining itself is complete by the production and hoisting of the ore... ”. ... < On these facts, the question is whether or not there was a mine, namely, the so-called No. 2 mine on this property of the appellant distinct from the so-called No. 1 mine within the meaning of the word ‘‘mine’’ in Section 83(5) of the Income Tax Act. ...

& O., Exhibit R-3) and Canadian Forces Administrative Order (CFAO) 27-1 (Exhibit R-4). ... & O. provides that when a mess account owed by an officer is overdue, the commanding officer may order that the officer concerned is subject to an administrative deduction in an amount sufficient to pay the account. ... by Peter Wright, then of McMillan, Binch, Wilkinson, Stuart, Berry & Wright, in 1951 Canadian Bar Review. ...

& T.’s Leading Cases, 8th ed. 820; Fowkes v. Pascoe (1875), 10 Ch. ... & K. 262; 39 E.R. 944, where at page 273 he said: “It was further contented that the circumstance of the testator’s power over this chose in action continuing after the transfer and up to his death differs this from the case of advancement to a child. ... Pitcher, supra, the appellant had complete power” over their money ‘ As husband, and in the exercise of his marital right’’. ...

At trial, the appellant struck out paragraph 1 of the statement of facts and subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 2; the respondent, conversely indicating his consent to have the matter ‘‘decided on the merits’’, and that ‘‘... the eleven items under section 2(c) were properly before the Court” (c/. ... Webb’s professional services were retained by Dmytro Ruzesky at whose request he prepared exhibit E, a '■ net worth statement of appellant’s assets for the period December 31, 1941 to December 31, 1948. ... The partial revisions allowed of the “calculated Net Income for years 1949 to 1954 inel.’’ figured at $42,861.42 in exhibit 5, may be summarized in the breakdown hereafter: Item (II) reduced from $1,900 to $900, a rebate of-$1,000.00 Item (VII) to read $3,269, instead of $800, a rebate of $2,469.00 Item (IX) to read $2,623.02, instead of $540, a rebate of $2,083.02 Item (X) to read $2,613.50, instead of $2,952.40, a rebate of $ 338.90 A total of $5,890.92 When subtracted from $42,861.42, the deductions above leave an assessable revenue of $36,970.50 for the material period in question. ...

Monsieur Archambault relate qu’il se porta personnellement acquéreur de ce terrain et des constructions qui s’y trouvaient, en juin 1955, afin de satisfaire aux exigences commerciales de la firme “Antonio Archambault & compagnie Limitée’’, qui, le 25 février 1953, commencait à se substituer à une première entreprise et cela pour des motifs de convenance administrative. ... Chalifoux déclare qu’Ar- chambault le consulta au sujet des restrictions imposées par réglementation civique * vers la fin de juin 1955”, mais assurément ‘après” et non pas ‘‘avant’’ l’acte d’achat du 22 juin. ... L’honorable Juge Cameron repoussa la prétention du ministère du Revenu national, de prélever un impôt sur ces bénéfices, par les motifs ci-après, qu’une traduction ne saurait adéquatement reproduire, je citerai dane le texte même: ‘ Held: (i) That the property was acquired solely for the purpose of turning it over at cost to the company to be formed, with a ‘loophole’ by means of which the purchaser could escape without loss or profit by sale to Shields if the plan fell through; (ii) That there was no intention of deriving any profit from the purchase price since the established intention was that no profit would be made whether on the sale to the company or, alternatively, to Shields; (iii) That the gain was entirely fortuitous and not the result of an operation of business when carrying out a scheme for profit-making; (iv) That there was no adventure or concern in the nature of trade and that the profit realized on the transaction was not profit from a business but was rather an accretion to capital, not subject to tax;’’. ...