Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

The head office of the company was fixed as being in the Township of Sandwich West and the objects for which incorporation was obtained read in part as follows, ‘‘to acquire by purchase, exchange, concession or otherwise lands and premises’’ and here is inserted the precise description of the lands conveyed by Dominion to Eastern, ‘‘and to develop thereon a shopping centre and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, for that purpose to lay out parking areas and to erect stores, shops, offices, restaurants and buildings of every description and to own, operate and maintain the same and to rent, lease, mortgage or otherwise charge or encumber the same or any part thereof ’ ’. ... A letter dated October 14, 1955, Exhibit 13, was written to John Penturn & Son Limited, realtors of Toronto, Ontario offering to sell land for an office building as well as for a department store. ... The cumulative effect of the foregoing facts leads me to the conclusion that the appellant was not engaged in an adventure or concern in the nature of trade and that the profit realized by the appellant on the sale of its shopping centre did not constitute 11 a gain made in an operation of business in carrying out a scheme for profit-making ’ ’ within the meaning of that expression as used by the Lord Justice Clerk in Californian Copper Syndicate (Limited and Reduced) v. ...

Fisher, from whose decisions the appeals are now taken, expressed his opinion on the matters in appeal in this case as follows: ‘“ As to the amounts received in the years 1946 and 1947 in respect of the gas lease, the pipe deal, and the salt lease, I have reached the conclusion that these were capital receipts arising out of isolated transactions which did not form part of the ordinary business of the appellant. ... Then, by the agreement, the respondent covenanted that in consideration of the premises and of one dollar "‘I hereby agree that I shall from this date forward hold the beneficial interest above referred to in trust for Bata Petroleums Limited so that they may receive through me all benefits which might otherwise be derived by me from the said lands and the said reservation or permit upon the following conditions: ‘ ‘ Bata, by the terms thereof, agreed forthwith to issue to Turnbull or his order "‘the shares above referred to’’ (the number of which was not specified in the agreement) and to assume all the obligations for which Turnbull might be liable under the permit or reservation. ... I think that Fell in his evidence correctly stated the purpose of the acquisition of the salt rights when he said that it was his intention " to get something good for the company”. ...

” This statement is not denied by the two inspectors who were called as witnesses. ... & W. 633 and pages 646 at 650; 150 E.R. 1298, Knutson v. Bourkes Syndicate, [1941] S.C.R. 419; 3 D.L.R. 593, The Municipality of the City and County of St. ... Silverberg’s evidence that it was Morris ’ responsibility to make decisions concerning the payment of the tax in question and that Mr. ...

In 1950 interest accrued to the appellant in the United States on the following Lakehead securities: 31 % Bonds due 4% Demand Notes Jan. 1, 1970 Purchased 200,000 Dee. 12, 1949 250,000 Jan. 23, 1950 500,000 Jan. 26, 1950 4,500,900 Mar. 29, 1950 9,900,000 June 1, 1950 4,500,000 Sept. 21, 1950 At the times of these purchases the appellant’s pipe line was not yet in operation and shares of its capital stock had been sold to the extent of only slightly more than $1,000,000. ... During 1951 the appellant continued to hold the $5,200,000 in 4% Lakehead demand notes and the $250,000 in 344% Lakehead bonds purchased with proceeds of the sale of the appellant’s 4% debentures and the $14,000,000 in 31/2 % Lakehead bonds purchased for the most part with funds representing proceeds of sale of the appellant’s 314% series B bonds. ... This would indicate and satisfy me that the interest which accrued in 1952 on the $5,200,000 in 4% demand notes and the $18,750,000 in 314 % Lakehead bonds was not equalled by the interest payable by the appellant on the borrowed money represented by these investments, and there would thus be some profit in respect of the holding of them. ...

When the second re-assessment was made, this appeal should have been discontinued* [2] or an application should have been made to have it quashed.f [3] This appeal is therefore dismissed, but, having regard to the fact that the second re-assessment appears to have been based on a new view of the facts and not upon a discovery of facts previously known to the taxpayer and not to the respondent, the respondent is ordered to pay such of the appellant’s costs of the appeal as were incurred prior to the setting down of the appeal for hearing. 1 * Reference has also been made to subsection (3) of Section 58 of the Act, which reads as follows: “(3) Upon receipt of the notice of objection, the Minister shall with all due despatch reconsider the assessment and vacate, confirm or vary the assessment or re-assess and he shall thereupon notify the taxpayer of his action by registered mail.” ...

and ‘‘ Anglin-Noreross’’ —under which a new company, West End Plaza Inc., was incorporated to construct and operate that project on the basis that (a) the appellant would transfer the lease for the site to West End Plaza, (b) Property and General Investments and Anglin Noreross would have the responsibility for the financing and construction of the proposed project, (c) the appellant would be employed as manager of the project, when completed, and (d) the appellant would subscribe for 200 shares in West End Plaza at $1 per share, and Property and General Investments and Anglin-Norcross would each subscribe for 400 shares at $1 per share. 3. ...

Exhibit 10 was filed which is a copy of an article from the Canadian Chartered Accountant of July, 1962, entitled ‘‘ Accounting for Finance Charges by Sales Finance Companies’’, wherein, among other things, the author of the article describes these two methods, whose opinion was concurred in by the witness, Mr. ...

Furthermore, Section 98(2) indicates clearly that a notice of appeal \ may be served upon the taxpayer either personally or by being sent by registered mail addressed to him at his last known address and I cannot see why the decision should not be conveyed in a similar manner. ...

The said sale consideration of $176,000 by the provisions of the sale contract was payable and paid over a five-year period in the following amounts: 1958 $ 36,000 1959 35,000 1960 35,000 1961 39,000 1962 35,000 making a total of $176,000. ...

The two cases on which the appellant relied in that connection — M.N.R. v: Valclair Investment Co. ...