Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

Solicitors for the appellant: Hamilton & Wragge. Solicitors for the respondent: Nisbet & Graham. [1] [1924] 1 W.W.R. 1017. [2] [1924] 1 W.W.R. 1017. [3] [1908] 14 B.C. ...

Solicitors for the respondent: Goodman & Carr, Toronto.   [1] [1968] 2 Ex. ...

Anaconda American Brass Ltd. 3: The income tax law of Canada, as of the United Kingdom, is built upon the foundations described by Lord Clyde in Whimster & Co. v. ... Solicitors for the respondent: Chambers, Saucier, Jones, Peacock, Black, Gain & Stratton, Calgary. 1 [1963] Ex. ...

Solicitors for the appellant: Freedman, Cohl, Murray & Osak, Toronto. ...   [1] 122 C.C.C. 375, 29 C.R. 379. [2] 122 C.C.C. 375, 29 C.R 379. [3] Ante p. 286. [4] Ante p. 294. [5] [19551 S.C.R. 646. ...

(See Osler, Hammond & Nanton Limited v. M.N.R., [1963] S.C.R. 432 at 484; [1963] C.T.C. 164 at 166, per Judson, J.) ... It is of some significance to note in this connection that the lands were entered in the books of the company in an account under the heading ‘‘ Land for Resale’’. ...

The judgments below having been reported, it will be sufficient for me to summarize the facts in the following fashion: (1) two United States corporations, Federal Bulk Carriers, Inc (referred to as “Federal Bulk”) and Bessemer Securities Corporation (referred to as “Bessemer”) beneficially owned the ship Federal Monarch through subsidiary companies; the ship was chartered to Imperial Oil Limited; (2) as of July 31, 1961 the appellant purchased from Federal Buik and Bessemer the shares and outstanding notes of the holding companies for the sum of $2,325,000 and then purchased the ship from the holding companies; (3) appellant insisted on guarantees from the vendors as to ithe income to be earned by the vessel during the chartered period; that protection was derived by placing part of the purchase price into an escrow corporation and setting up a mechanism whereby the purchase price could be adjusted according to the annual income earning pattern of the investment;; (4) Federal Bulk and Bessemer jointly incorporated Bessbulk Limited, the escrow corporation (referred to as “Bessbulk”), and transferred to it the sum of $1,943,550 out of the purchase price paid to them by the appellant; Bessbulk was to invest those moneys in certain income producing assets, such income io be paid to appellant in all or in part should the revenue from the vessel be less than the anticipated amount guaranteed as above; (5) according to this 1961 agreement, should the performance of the vessel be deficient to the point that the aggregate of the actual income from its operations and of the investment income received from Bessbulk be inferior to the guaranteed amount, the shortfall, defined in the agreement as net revenue decrease, became a debt owing by Bessbulk to the appellant, to remain in existence until actual payment or until compensated by the profit derived from the future operations of the ship; (6) by agreement dated June 20, 1963 the 1961 agreement was restructured; the appellant was now agreeing to purchase from Federal Bulk and Bessemer all the outstanding shares and debentures of Bessbulk at a price which took into account the net revenue of the ship over the years and which was not payable until the charters were terminated or the ship was sold, whichever first occurred; (7) for every year of performance, the ship had a shortfall in performance; deficiencies in the ship’s net revenue for the relevant fiscai years were as follows: 1962 $ 206,932 1963 362,108 1964 307,255 1965 129,482 1966 195,302 $1,201,079 (8) the appellant received from Bessbulk in accordance with the 1961 indemnity agreement the sum of $36,058 in fiscal year 1963: (9) the appellant received from Bessbulk in accordance with the 1963 purchase agreement the following sums: Fiscal 1964 $ 55,826., 1965 60,834,, 1966 63,717 $180,377 (10) on November 19, 1965 (in the 1966 fiscal year) the ship was sold to Oswego Unity Corporation; (11) the appellant then paid for the shares and debentures of Bessbulk which it had acquired pursuant to the 1963 purchase agreement; the purchase price was calculated as follows: Net worth of Bessbulk Limited as at November 19, 1965 $2,178,953 Less Charter period deduction 984,644 Basic purchase price $1,194,309 (12) the charter period deduction was calculated as follows: Amount by which the actual revenue from the vessel was less than the projected revenue $1,201,079 Less Earnings of Bessbulk Ltd available for distribution to Maple Leaf and received by Maple Leaf 216,435 Unrecovered net revenue decrease which represented — the Charter period deduction $ 984,644 The amount in issue in the appeal before this court is this last mentioned figure of $984,644 less whatever amount is properly chargeable to the 1966 taxation year. ...

The work done on these lengths by defendant was: first, to cut them in lengths of 10’, or 8’; second to creosote them, or dip them in creosoting oils to preserve them against the elements of the weather (for which defendants have a special plant); third, to round them or mill or dress the lumber to the rounded shape; fourth, to bore holes in them in order to insert the pin on which the insulator is placed, and after this work was done, they were sold to the Canadian Pacific Railway at a price, not based on so uch ‘ a thousand feet, but based on so much per hundred “cross arms”. ... Higgins as being an authority which should persuade this Court to hold that ‘‘ produce’’ and ‘‘manufacture’’ as used in the statute presently considered in which neither is defined are synonymous, and I adopt the course of McRuer, C.J.H.C., in Gruen Watch Co. v. ... I view these considerations of both the exemptions in Schedule III to the Excise Tax Act and the items in the Customs Act as being confirmatory of my view that the legislators intended that the words ‘‘manufactured’’ or ‘‘ produced’’ should encompass goods such as the polished marble slabs in question in this appeal. ...

Tariff item 410 z appears in Schedule A to the Customs Tariff: GOODS SUBJECT TO DUTY AND FREE GOODS Tariff Item   British Preferential Tariff Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff General Tariff 410z Machinery and apparatus, n.o.p., and parts thereof, for the recovery of solid or liquid particles from flue or other waste gases at metallurgical or industrial plants, not to include motive power, tanks for gas, nor pipes and valves 10½ inches or less in diameter……………………….. 5 p.c. 10 p.c. 12½ p.c. ... Solicitors for the respondent, Research-Cottrell (Canada) Ltd.: Gowling, MacTavish, Osborne & Henderson, Ottawa. ... (Canada) Ltd.: Herridge, Tolmie, Gray, Coyne & Blair, Ottawa.   [1] [1967] 2 Ex. ...

Regulations respecting applications for premium reduction were properly brought into force and they provided the following in s. 24 thereof: 24. (1) … (2) Upon receiving an application for a reduction of an employer’s premium, an officer of the Commission shall decide whether or not a reduction shall be made. (3) An employer may, within 30 days of the mailing of a notice of a decision made pursuant to subsection (2), (or within such further time as the Commission may allow,) apply for a review of the decision by a review panel consisting of officers designated by the Commission. (4) An employer who is not satisfied with the decision of the review panel referred to in subsection (3) may appeal to the Commission for a final determination of the question. ... Solicitors for the respondent: Doheny, Mackenzie, Grivakes, Gervais & Lemoyne, Montreal ...   [1] [1979] 2 F.C. 100. [2] [1979] 1 S.C.R. 495. ...

Section 2(m) defines ‘‘succession’’: ‘ l'A.. every past or future disposition of property, by reason whereof any person has or shall become beneficially entitled to any property... upon the death of any deceased person... either certainly or contingently...’’ and the issue is whether, in respect of the tax benefit, the legatees can be said to have become ‘‘beneficially entitled to any property’’ of the estate. ... If the word recover” extends to the application of money to one’s benefit, and sue for ” to an ultimate or alternative resort as the effective cause of payment, I am disposed to accept it. ... Section 6(1) of the Act imposes the duties and reads, so far as relevant: “6. (1) Subject to the exemptions mentioned in section seven of this Act, there shall be assessed, levied and paid at the rates provided for in the First Schedule to this Act duties upon or in respect of the following successions, that is to say: (a) where the deceased was at the time of his death domiciled in a province of Canada, upon or in respect of the succession to all real or immovable property situated in Canada, and all personal property wheresoever situated; ’ ’ It will be observed that duties are levied only upon or in respect of a “succession” which term is defined in Section 2(m) as follows: (m) ‘succession’ means every past or future disposition of property, by reason whereof any person has or shall become beneficially entitled to any property or the income thereof upon the death of any deceased person, either immediately or after any interval, either certainly or contingently, and either originally or by way of substitutive limitation, and every devolution by way of any beneficial interest in property, or the income thereof, upon the death of any such deceased person, to any other person in possession or expectancy, and also includes any disposition of property deemed by this act to be included in a succession;’’ Clause (n) of Section 2 defines a “successor” as “the person entitled under a succession.” ...