Search - 枣庄市市中区 智博公考 地址 电话

I am of the opinion, however, that the words "‘annual net profits or gain ‘ ‘ in the second line of the definition refer to income whether ascertained or unascertained; and as the word source is used in line 18 it could be argued that it refers to all the following subsections of clause 1 of Section 3 and that the various classifications therein detailed are given as sources of income rather than items of taxable income. ... Rogers (1926), 11 T.C. 508; Robert Addie & Sons Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioner, [1924] S.C. 231 at 235. ... In the absence of any such provision in our Act I cannot give effect to the argument of the appellant’s counsel that it should be allowed to members of Parliament and members of Legislatures in Canada, although, as he urges, it might well be considered ‘ " fair and just. ’ ’ My attention was also directed by counsel for the respondent to section 75(2) of our Act, giving the Minister power to make regulations necessary for carrying the Act into effect, etc. and to authorize the Commissioner to exercise such of his powers in that regard as could in the opinion of the Minister be conveniently exercised by the Commissioner. ...

The principal paragraph in the usual form of license is as follows: "The licensor hereby grants to the licensee the right to use the inventions described and claimed in said letters patent on the aforesaid machines of the licensee, located as aforesaid including any improvements on said inventions which the licensor may acquire upon the following terms and conditions. ‘ ‘ The licenses are not assignable, and no license passes with the sale of any machine sold by the licensee, but the licensor agrees not unreasonably to refuse to grant a license in the case of a sale of a machine by the licensee. ... The Minister shall have full discretion as to the manner of determining such proportionate part. ‘ ‘ The appellant claims that it does not receive royalty for " * anything used or sold in Canada’’, and that the transactions of the appellant in Canada in connection with the licensing of patents, is not a carrying on of business in Canada within the contemplation of the statute, and that the payments made to the appellant by the licensees are not taxable. ...

Many of these advertisements include ‘ 1 mouton ” or ‘‘mouton lamb ’ ’ under the general heading of ‘‘Furs’’. ... Moskoff — President of the defendant corporation — viewed its product prior to the commencement of these proceedings. ... Now mouton is offering the customers fur coats at... ” 4 Mouton has made ‘fur coats for all ’ a real possibility’’, ‘‘The mouton coat is more desirable than most other fur coats, Mr. ...

It provided as follows: “20. (1) The value of every annuity, term of years, life estate, income or other estate, and of every interest in expectancy, shall be determined, (i) if the succession does not depend on life contingencies, on the basis of compound interest at the rate of four per centum per annum with annual rests; and (ii) if the succession depends on life contingencies, on the basis of interest as aforesaid, together with the standard of mortality as defined in Table II below; and Tables I, III and IV, below, which are derived from the bases aforesaid, shall be used so far as they may be applicable in the valuation of any succession. ’ ’ The tables referred to this regulation were entitled as follows: “TABLES The Tables hereby approved pursuant to Section 34 of the Act and referred to in Regulation 20 are as follows: Table I PRESENT VALUE OF DEFERRED GIFTS * * oe Table II PRESCRIBED STANDARD OF Mortality * x * Table III PRESENT VALUE OF LIFE INTERESTS or Life ANNUITIES * * x PRESENT VALUE OF an ANNUITY FOR a TERM Certain” The figure 15.41547 appears in Table III as the value of an annuity of $1 per annum for life for a person of the age which Millicent Elizabeth Burns had attained on June 23, 1953. ... The other purpose of the Act for which determinations of value must be made is the ascertainment of ‘ dutiable value ’ ’ by which additional rates of duty prescribed by Section 11 are governed and to which both the initial and the additional rates are applied. ... The value of every annuity, term of years, life estate, income, or other estate, and of every interest in expectancy shall for the purposes of this Act be determined by such rule, method and standard of mortality and of value, and at such rate of interest as from time to time the Minister may decide, and the value so determined shall be deemed to be the fair market value thereof. ’ ’ The substitution of this provision seems to me to have wrought a considerable change, and it may well be that, on its present language, the scope of Section 34 has been made wide enough to apply to the valuation of the interest in question as part of the aggregate net value of the estate of Michael John Burns. ...

(b) There shall be imposed, levied and collected upon all goods enumerated in schedule II to this Part, * * * when any such goods are manufactured or produced in Canada and sold * * *, the rate of excise tax set opposite to each item in said schedule II.” The said schedule mentions ‘‘ale, beer, porter and stout, per gallon * * * twelve and one-half cents,” and also cigars and carbonic acid gas. ... In the case of the sales tax, which is imposed by s. 19BBB, subsee. 1, of the same statute as amended, the relevant provision is as follows: “In addition to any duty or tax that may be payable under this Part, * * * there shall be imposed, levied and collected a consumption or sales tax of five per cent on the sale price of all goods produced or manufactured in Canada *** which tax shall be payable by the producer or manufacturer at the time of the sale by him; * * *. ...

He also stated that he removed the inscription ‘ ‘ Gérard Beaucage, Prop. ’ ’ from the Neon sign on which the word ‘ ‘Taverne” appeared and replaced it with his own name. ... In the first of these cases, it was held that ‘‘ goodwill cannot be made the subject of a capital cost allowance” (Castellan v. ... If instead of the respondent’s figure of $19,500 for leasehold interest the amount of $58,500 — as originally claimed by the appellant — be substituted, this would result in an increased allowance, amounting in round figures to $8, 000, to which he would be entitled. ...

I do not think that the words in paragraph (h) — “grant, subsidy or other assistance from a... public authority ’ ’ — have any application to an ordinary business contract negotiated by both parties to the contract for business reasons. ... Styles (1887), 2 T.C. 239 and John Smith & Son v. Moore (1921), 12 T.C. 266.1 should have thought that that might be so even where the contract arose by virtue of the current operations of the business and was not acquired by virtue of a capital expenditure.* [9] If the contract was a capital asset, such part, if any, of what was received as may properly be regarded as being merely the consideration for its surrender was presumably not received on revenue account. ... If he is right in contending that there is no such capital cost, obviously he succeeds without relying on either Section 12(2) or Section 137 (1). 2 +Some small parts continued to operate on 25 cycle power, but these were too remote from the appellant’s plant to have any effect on the situation in this case. 3 * There has been no suggestion that there is any difference between “cost” and “capital cost” in the circumstances of this case. ...

On the first $250 of the- income or any portion thereof, 22 per centum per annum; or i ” Paragraph AA of the First Schedule: " " Rate of tax applicable to investment income of persons other than corporations and joint stock companies, under subsection one of section nine of this Act, On investment income in excess of $1, 800—four per centum.” ... :invest- ment income ‘ ‘ and that must mean investment income as defined in the Act. In my view, ‘‘earned income ‘‘ was defined solely for the purpose of then defining " " investment income ‘ and, for the purpose of this case, it is sufficient to say that in general terms investment income is any income not defined in the Act as ‘‘earned income’’. ...

The appellant says that the plans were established on the advice of an auditor and that the intention was to make payments into the Pension Plan for current and past service of the brothers Lebovie, then to pay out the money to them and terminate that Plan, whereupon they would pay the money into the Deferred Profit Sharing Plan, of which they would be trustees, and as such trustees they would use the money to purchase preference shares of the company as an investment, which shares when redeemed would provide money for retirement benefits for themselves; and that, pursuant to that intention, the appellant established the Pension Plan by its By-law No. 5 (Exhibit 37) on December 28, 1964, and appointed the brothers as trustees of the Plan; that it applied to the respondent for registration of the Plan under Section 139(1) (ahh) of the Income Tax Act and it was so registered by the respondent on April 5, 1965, under that section; that the appellant also applied to the respondent for approval of a lump sum contribution of $195,244.20 to the Plan in respect of past service of the brothers pursuant to Section 76 of the Act and to a recommendation by a qualified actuary, and was advised by a letter from the respondent dated September 8, 1965 (Exhibit 28) that the actuary’s calculations had been confirmed and that payments made to liquidate the liability in that respect could be claimed as a ‘‘special payment” under Section 76; that, acting in reliance on the anticipated approval of the Plan and the lump sum past service contribution, the company had paid the following amounts into the Plan: (a) Current service contributions: December 29, 1964 $ 3,000 March 3, 1965 $ 3,000 (b) Past service contributions: February 26, 1965 $ 60,000 March 2, 1965 $135,244.20 and in filing its income tax returns it claimed deductions on account of the said payments. ... The minutes (Exhibit 60) state that resolutions were passed (a) reviving the Pension Plan, (b) redeeming at par 15,524 preference shares issued in the name of the trustees of the Deferred Profit Sharing Plan, and (c) directing the trustees of the Deferred Profit Sharing Plan to refund to Wolf Lebovic $96,699.31 and to Joseph Lebovie $100,344.89 by distribution of the following assets to them pro rata: To Joseph Lebovic — cheque $ 79,443.79 — 350 shares Alcan 10,151.10 — 1,000 shares Revenue Properties 10,750.00 $100,344.89 To Wolf Lebovic — cheque $ 75,798.22 — 350 shares Alcan 10,151.10 — 1,000 shares Revenue Properties 10,750.00 $ 96,699.31 and to transfer to the brothers the ownership of certificates of the policy issued by Industrial Life Insurance Company on their lives. ... Anson-Cartwright, a chartered accountant and partner in Price Waterhouse & Co., was called as an expert witness by the respondent. ...

If they are, on the other hand, revenues of a ‘‘business’’, the deductions that may be made in computing " ‘income’’ for the purposes of Part I are not so limited.) ... Article 2.3 further provides that “The Radiologist” agrees “that sufficient coverage shall be provided so that equivalent of one full time Radiologist will be provided for each regular 0,000 examinations per annum... ” thus implying that, if the volume of work should require it, the appellant was to provide the services of more than one radiologist. 6. ... According to Article 12 of the relevant by-laws, such " Chiefs ‘ ‘ were required to " " supervise their respective Departments’’. ...