Search - 微信撤回和删除的区别 官方

. … For resuming the male role, I should be treated equally and given the same male deduction of ITA sec 60(b). ...

Subparagraph 56(l)(n)(i) states: (/) The aggregate of all amounts (other than amounts described in paragraph q), amounts received in the course of business, and amounts received in respect of, in the course of or by virtue of an office or employment) received by him in the year, each of which is an amount received by the taxpayer as or on account of a scholarship, fellowship or bursary, or a prize for achievement in a field of endeavour ordinarily carried on by the taxpayer other than a prescribed prize),... ...

Dukelow and Betsy Nuse, in part as follows: “Pecuniary support including support or alimony to be paid to someone who is not a spouse. [...] ...

Attached to the letter is a single sheet of paper entitled ‘Appraisal for Parkland Savings & Credit Union’. ...

The assessments impose upon the Appellants the outstanding liability of the various companies for source deductions made by the companies from their employees for income tax, both federal and provincial, and for contributions under the Unemployment Insurance Act (as it then was called), and the Canada Pension Plan, together with penalties and interest. [1] The assessments in question are as follows: Company Assessment date Amount for Daniel lan nuzzi Daisons January 20, 1993 $175,245.15 Corcan January 20, 1993 $575,012.97 Fotoset January 20, 1993 $302,848.10 VitaSana January 20, 1993 $ 52,302.75 for Elena Caprile Daisons January 20, 1993 $175,245.15 Corcan September 21, 1994 $657,093.51 By agreement of the parties, the six appeals were heard together on common evidence. ...

Dukelow and Betsy Nuse, in part as follows: “Pecuniary support including support or alimony to be paid to someone who is not a spouse. [...] ...

In Everest & Jennings Canada Ltd. v. Invacare Corp., [1984] 1 F.C. 856 (Fed. ...

The Board’s decision was followed recently by this Court in Granby Construction & Equipment Ltd. v. ...

In this connection, counsel for the Respondent commented as follows in his memorandum submitted during oral argument entitled “Respondent’s Points of Argument”: At the time of amendment of the provision into its present form 1956, the Minister responsible indicated that the deduction was not intended to be applicable in the case of all clergymen or ministers, and that it was to apply to a clergyman, ‘whether he be in fact a pastor in charge of a congregation or a member of the church body in the higher level [...] who engages in church work exclusively including acting as a pastor from time to time’. ...

By notices of reassessment, the Minister added the following four amounts as “additional initiation fee income” to the Appellant’s reported income for the four respective taxation years shown below: Taxation Year Amount December 31, 1992 $696,860 December 31, 1993 $335,003 February 18, 1994 $ 71,736 October 31, 1994 $132,693 The amount of $696,860 in the above table was calculated as follows: Initiation fees received in 1992 $357,210 Add initiation fees deferred from prior years 441,154 Subtotal 798,364 Less initiation fees reported as part of net income for 1992 101,504 Additional initiation fee income $696,860 The Appellant claims in paragraph 5 of its Amended Notice of Appeal that, if it does not provide continuous access to and use of its club facilities to a particular member over a ten-year period commencing on the date of initial membership, it is obliged to refund a pro rata portion of the initiation fee which relates to the portion of the 10-year period during which its facilities are not provided to the particular member. ...