Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

Following communication of these terms to appellant’s counsel, and upon some sufficient indication or assurance being given that the total amount to be paid would not exceed $1,200,000 and that counsel for the Department would review the transactions involved in the Department’s computations for the purpose of assuring himself that on the information available they were properly included therein, the following document was executed by the appellant and his counsel and by Eco and on July 2, 1964 was delivered to counsel for the Department: Mr C Gordon Dilts, Barrister & Solicitor, 503 Electric Railway Chambers, WINNIPEG, Manitoba Dear Mr Dilts: Re: Mark Gerald Smerchanski and Eco Exploration Company Limited (no personal liability) We, Mark Gerald Smerchanski and Harry Walsh, hereby jointly and severally commit ourselves unconditionally to the payment in cash of the total income tax liability of Mark Gerald Smerchanski and Eco Exploration Company Limited (no personal liability) (including interest and penalties) for the years 1945 to 1959, both inclusive, as determined by the Department of National Revenue, such payment to be made upon our being advised by the said Department of the total amount of such liability. ... “M G Smerchanski” “Harry Walsh” ECO EXPLORATION COMPANY LIMITED (NO PERSONAL LIABILITY) Per: “P N Smerchanski” President “Phillip Smerchanski” Secretary On July 8, 1964, following the contemplated review by Mr Dilts, which resulted in amounts totalling $148,984.15 being eliminated from the computations of Ificome, notices of reassessments of the appellant and of Eco were delivered by hand to appellant’s counsel together with drafts of the documents here in question for execution and an accompanying letter which read as follows: July 8, 1964 Mr Harry Walsh, QC, Messrs Walsh, Micay & Co, Barristers & Solicitors, 7th Fl, Childs Bldg, Winnipeg, Manitoba Re: Mark G Smerchanski and Eco Exploration Company Limited Our File No C-51 CGD Dear Sir: Further to our telephone conversation of today’s date, we enclose Notices of Re-assessment in regard to the income tax of the above named for the years 1945 to 1959. ... Yours truly, THOMPSON, DILTS, JONES, HALL, DEWAR & RITCHIE Per: “C G Dilts” CGD*nd Encl. ...

A., [3] has the meaning of "not more extended, not going beyond what has been dealt with”, “ not going or extending beyond what exists"'. ... XI, Montréal: Wilson & Lafleur Ltd., 1961, at page 49. 9 Gagnon v. ... Faribault, Traité de droit civil du Québec, t. 7a, Montreal: Wilson & Lafleur Ltd., 1957, at page 272. 11 The appellant referred to Croteau v. ...

Gardner Mountain & D’Ambrumenil, Ltd. (1947), 29 T.C. 69 which Jackett P. cited in his now famous footnote. ... The principles enunciated in Gardner Mountain & D’Ambrumenil, Ltd. apply to it. ... Krishna & J.A. Rendall, Essays on Canadian Taxation: Basic Accounting Concepts (Toronto: Richard De Boo Limited, 1978) at page 115. 10 W.R. ...

I say this on the authority of the case of Roberts and Bagwell v Her Majesty the Queen, [1957] S.C.R. 28, which incidentally was followed by Joseph Simard & Cre, Ltée v MNR, [1964] CTC 461: 64 DTC 5289, per Dumoulin, J of ire Exchequer Court of Canada. ... It was stated in this way by Parke, B (Becke v Smith (1836), 2 M & W 191 at p 195): “It is a very useful rule, in the construction of a statute, to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with the intention of the legislature, to be collected from the statute itself...” ... If in such a statute the word “gift” were to be limited to gratuitous transfers of property, in my view, the door would be opened wide to those who would seek to circumvent the avowed purpose of the Act by the subterfuge of disguised sales as was done by the respondent herein and by the appellant in Joseph Simard & Cie, Ltée v MNR (supra). ...

He died intestate in February, 1977 leaving him surviving his spouse Winnifred —one of the Administrators — resident at Macklin, and two sons Irvin and Gerald. ... Subsection 9(2) ordains in mandatory terms that no allowance of relief to a spouse shall be less than would go to the spouse on an intestacy and this, I think, expresses public policy in Saskatchewan as to the minimum rights of a spouse in the deceased spouse’s estate — subject, of course, to restrictions that are not applicable here. ... The Queen’s Bench order in this case ordered, inter alia: “... that the assets of the Estate of William Edward Hillis are hereby granted to Winnifred M Hillis...”. ...

. — EXHIBIT NO 17: Receipt and satisfaction signed by Pepsi Cola Canada Limited. ...

Issues — argument The sole issue in this appeal is whether the shares vested indefeasibly in the spousal trust created under the will. ...

. — Every corporation shall, in respect of each of its taxation years, pay to the Receiver General (a) either (i) on or before the last day of each month in the year, an amount equal to '/12 of the aggregate of the amounts estimated by it to be the taxes payable under this Part and Part VI.1 by it for the year, (ii) on or before the last day of each month in the year, an amount equal to V12 of its first instalment base for the year, or (iii) on or before the last day of each of the first two months in the year, an amount equal to ‘/12 of its second instalment base for the year, and on or before the last day of each of the following months in the year, an amount equal to ‘0 of the amount remaining after deducting the amount computed pursuant to this subparagraph in respect of the first two months from its first instalment base for the year; and (b) the remainder of the taxes payable by it under this Part and Part VI.1 for the year (i) on or before the end of the third month following the end of the year, where (A) an amount was deducted by virtue of section 125 in computing the tax payable under this Part by the corporation for the year or its immediately preceding taxation year, and (B) the corporation is, throughout the year, a Canadian-controlled private corporation whose taxable income for the immediately preceding taxation year together with the taxable incomes of all corporations with which it was associated in the year for their taxation years ending in the calendar year immediately preceding the calendar year in which the taxation year of the corporation ended does not exceed the aggregate of the business limits (as determined under section 125) of the corporation and the associated corporations for those preceding years, or (ii) on or before the end of the second month following the end of the year, in any other case. ...

The front of the ticket also stated: “ first prize $1,000 each month for life". ...

Accordingly and pursuant to rule 1312, I would not award costs. 1 ♦Compare The Royal Bank of Canada v D/MNR, [1982] CTC 183; 81 DTC 5301 at 5303 (Supreme Court of Canada) and D/MNR v Bonair Leisure Industries Ltd, [1982] CTC 188; 82 DTC 6217 at 6219 — Federal Court of Appeal. ...