Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

  [1] [1967] 2 Ex. C.R. 32, [1967] C.T.C. 88, 67 D.T.C. 5073. ...

In this connection — (i) An enterprise of one of the territories shall not be deemed to have a permanent establishment in the other territory merely because it carries on business dealings in that other territory through a bona fide broker or general commission agent acting in the ordinary course of his business as such; (ii) The fact that an enterprise of one of the territories maintains in the other territory a fixed place of business exclusively for the purchase of goods or merchandise shall not of itself constitute that fixed place of business a permanent establishment of the enterprise; (iii) The fact that a company which is a resident of one of the territories has a subsidiary company which is a resident of the other territory or which carries on a trade or business in that other territory (whether through a permanent establishment or otherwise) shall not of itself constitute that subsidiary company a permanent establishment of its parent company. ...

:—On April 27, 1929, the appellant made a return of his income for the year ending December 31, 1928, which return contained the following entry under Clause 6: ‘‘Income from Dividends *** Received from Waterous Limited, Brantford, Ontario, Dominion of Canada Victory Loan Bonds, maturing November 1st, 1933, as dividend declared payable in bonds; these bonds being tax free as to principal and interest. ...

The principle was applied by this Court in Bennett & White v. M.N.R., [1949] S.C.R. 287; [1949] C.T.C. 1, in which certain payments, made as the price of obtaining guarantees required for bank advances to the company, were held to be of a capital nature and not deductible. ... In the circumstances it was held to be of the latter, but in the reasons the following language clearly differentiates the case from that before us: " " Now, it seems to us, having regard to ordinary business and banking experience, that it would be absolutely impossible to dissect the various items in an overdraft account. ... M.N.R., [1944] A.C. 126; [1944] C.T.C. 94, and Bennett & White Construction Co. ...

I don’t think the intent was to save the company in the technical — I mean in the words that you used them. ... He subsequently proved as a creditor in the company’s bankruptcy and received two dividends — one in 1959 for $6,119 and the other in 1961 for $3,200. ... See Stewart & Morrison Limited v MNR, [1972] CTC 73; 72 DTC 6049, in this Court. ...

The judgment of this Court in that case was delivered February 7th, 1933, and shortly thereafter Parliament amended the Special War Revenue Act by ch. 50, 1932-33, sec. 20, adding a provision (sec. 98) that where goods are sold at a price (that is, by the manufacturer or producer) "which in the judgment of the Minister" is [Page 180] less than "the fair price on which the tax should be imposed ", the Minister shall have the power to determine the fair price and the taxpayer shall pay the tax on the price so determined. ... It was held that in arriving at the amount of the income taxes to be paid by the Pioneer Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Ltd., the Minister had actually not exercised the discretion left to him by the Act as to depreciation, and the matter was referred back to him in order that that should be done. ... Solicitor for the respondent: Mulock, Milliken, Clark & Redman. [1] [1941] Ex. ...

To obtain these deductions Falconbridge must show that they come within Section 53(4) of the 1949 income tax amending Act, 1949 (Second Session), ¢. 25. ... J ULLBRIDGE There are four items of expenditure relating to those agreements: Depart Decision Item Item Period of Expenditure mental in Exche Decision quer Court I. $ 10,512.05 Prior to November 14, 1950, date of incorporation of Gullbridge Disallowed Allowed The Minister appeals the allowance of the first two items and Falconbridge appeals the disallowance of the second two. ... STANMORE Item XI. $15,063.71 This agreement is dated April 27, 1951, between Falconbridge, Stanmore Mining & Smelting Limited and a number of other companies and individuals. ...

Solicitors for the appellants: McCarthy & McCarthy, Toronto. Solicitor for the respondent: D.S. ...   [1] [1955] S.C.R. 637. ...

McKay and $. M. Baird. The minutes of a meeting of the directors of the old company held on June 21 show that on that date Stuart resigned as president and director of the company and Sheldon, Jr., was appointed to both offices in his place, and Nicholson resigned as director and secretary, being replaced by Egoff. ... The Income Tax Act does not define the expression ‘‘ dealing at arm’s length’’, though Section 127(5) (b) provides that, for the purposes of the Act, corporations controlled directly or indirectly by the same person: “shall, without extending the meaning of the expression ‘to deal with each other at arm’s length’, be deemed not to deal with each other at arm’s length.’’ ...

Section 108, Part XIV, it should be observed, presupposes the existence of a tax or sum "payable under this Act," the existence, that is to say, of a legal duty, imposed by the statute upon the person from whom the "debt" is alleged to be "due" or the "right enforceable " to pay to the Crown the sum sued for. ... Solicitors for the respondent: Grossman, Holland & Co. [1] (1933) 47 B.C. ...