Search - 枣庄市市中区 智博公考 地址 电话

& J. Wilson” was owned and operated by J. E. Wilson, father of the appellant. ... & J. Wilson” direct to the widow. In the books of that business they were posted to ‘‘ Account of Mrs. ... & J. Wilson’’ might in that case lose possession thereof. Now “W. ...

For that reason, " " building” is not a genus, nor can the words "‘or other structure” be regarded as general words in Class 3. ... London County Council (1899), 81 L.T. 450, and Regent’s Canal & Dock Co. v. ... That case should not be followed for two reasons: 1. that construction would appear to reduce 66 structure” to the equivalent of building and therefore make " " structure ‘ ‘ or the words, "‘other structure’’, entirely superfluous. ...

Davidson & Co. Ltd. a corporation which has since then been engaged in underwriting and trading as a principal in securities. ... Denton who was a member of Burns Brothers & Denton Ltd., a company engaged in a business similar to that of A. ... Davidson & Co. Ltd., arranged to acquire some 54,000 shares representing 76% of the issued share capital of the company. ...

Next comes, on the longitudinal side of the cardboard container, a chemical and pharmaceutical nomenclature of the various contents compounded in ‘ ‘ Limmits ”; I quote: “Contents: This package contains 6 Limmits. ... S-2, a package of ‘‘ Afternoon Tea, assorted biscuits’’, made by the well-known English manufacturers, Peek, Frean & Co. ... Methionine Ingredient D Reduced Iron Ingredient E ’ ’ Lastly, I cannot detect how the definitions, hereunder, of the word “biscuit ’ could enhance the suppliants’ demands. ...

Godin, Godin, Mehnert & Prud’homme, 1155 Dorchester Blvd., West, Room 808, Montreal, P.Q.’’. ... Godin, Godin, Mehnert & Prud’homme and directing the Sheriff to recover from them. ... The assessment was addressed to ‘‘ Administrators’’ without naming them. ...

Pit #3 Pit #4 Pit #7 Pti #5 East Side Entwistle Lands Clover Bar Lands Lands Sand & Gravel (1960) Ltd. — $19,888.61 $ 67,538.48 $107,289.82 — Clover Bar Land Co. ... In the case of timber limits, similarly to the case of industrial mineral mines, the ‘ residual value ’ ’ of the property is deducted from the capital cost of the limit in fixing the rate basis for the amount of deductible capital cost allowances. ... The appellant also, as of January 31, 1962, transferred all its assets to Twin Bridges Sand & Gravel (1960) Ltd. ...

Portigal nor did he make use of the firm name of George Loos & Co. ... Portigal himself and to the name of George Loos & Co. as could be retained on Mr. ... In my opinion the nearest of the definitions to the meaning of “tangible” as used in the definition of Class 8 of Schedule B to Regulations is number (3) of the Funk & Wagnall definitions and I do not think that either goodwill or ‘ accounts ’ ’ constitute ‘‘a tangible capital asset’’ within the meaning of that expression in the regulation. ...

The only sale effected in 1956 occurred on May 25, when madame Thibeault sold to Coté & Lavigueur Construction Ltée practically all the remainder of the property, amounting to 426,781 sq. ft., for a reported price of $55,000, and, on the profit, was originally re-assessed by the Minister at $27,394.35 (Ex. ... Henri Lavigueur, an officer of Côté & Lavigueur Construction Ltée, testified that his company, for a long time, had been looking for a suitable land on which to build and that the instant property was found as a result of his company’s efforts. ... The efforts made by a woman who lacked business experience to carry out her original intention is in contrast to the ‘ ‘ do little or nothing ’ ’ attitude of the taxpayer in the Day ease, wherein he had more skill, ability and freedom than the respondent to dispose of his property in a manner which best suited his purpose. ...

In the case of the defendant Tees & Persse Limited, the excess values found on the fresh appraisals amounted to $131,947 and the amount of additional duty and taxes directed to be paid on the amended entries came to $63,955.18. ... The amount of additional customs duty and taxes found payable by the defendants as the result of these determinations was, in the case of the defendant Watt & Scott (Toronto) Ltd., the sum of $158,215.18 and, in the case of the defendant Tees & Persse Limited, the sum of $68,825.30. ... There will, therefore, be judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant Watt & Scott (Toronto) Ltd. for $158,215.18 and costs; and judgment for the plaintiff against. the defendant Tees & Persse Limited for $68,825.30 and costs. ...

Particulars of the computation of the aggregate of the amounts by which the respondent’s taxes under Part I of the Income Tax Act would have been increased in the years 1952 to 1956 both inclusive, if one-fifth of $39,068.13 (i.e. $7,813.62) had been included in computing respondent’s income for each of the said years. 1952 Taxable income declared nil Add: 14 of $39,068.13 $ 7,813.63 Revised taxable income 7,813.63 Tax thereon at 22% (1952 rate) $ 1,719.00 Less: Tax paid in 1952 nil Increase in tax for year..- $ 1,719.00 1953 Taxable income declared (loss) $ 22.90 Add: 14 of $39,068.13 7,813.63 Revised taxable income $ 7,790.73 Tax thereon at 20% (1953 rate)-..$ 1,558.15 Less: Tax paid in 1953 nil Increase in tax for year $ 1,558.15 1954 Taxable income declared (loss) $ 4,394.87 Add: 14 of $39,068.13 7,813.63 Revised taxable income $ 3,418.76 Tax thereon at 20% (1954 rate) $ 683.75 Less: Tax paid in 1954 nil Increase in tax for year$ 683.75 1955 Taxable income declared $ 6,808.42 Add: 14 of $39,068.13 7,813.63 Revised taxable income $14,622.04 Tax thereon at 20% (1955 rate) $ 2,924.41 Less: Tax paid in 1955 478.13 Increase in tax for year $ 2,446.28 1956 Taxable income declared $ 1.696.91 Add: 14 of $89,068.13 7,813.63 Revised taxable income $ 9,510.53 Tax thereon at 20% (1956 rate) $ 1,902.11 Less: Tax paid in 1956 339.38 Increase in tax for year $ 1,562.73 Aggregate of the total increase for the five years $ 7,969.91” The respondent does not contest the accuracy of the figures set out in the above particulars but takes exception to the method of computation used by the appellant. According to the respondent, its net tax owing, instead of being $9,778.68 as claimed by the appellant, amounts to $6,255.55, computed as follows: “Total additional amount of tax 1952-6 inclusive.. §$ 7,969.91 YEAR 1957 Operating income declared $16,379.74 Tax 20% $ 3,275.95 $ 3,275.95 TOTAL TAX $11,245.86 Tax allowance re: Province of Ontario—9% of $55,447 87 4,990.31 Net tax for year 1957 $ 6,255.55” It will be seen from the foregoing that the amount in dispute is the sum of $3,516.13, which is the difference between the respondent’s tax payable for the year, as assessed by the Minister and amounting to $9,771.68, and the respondent’s estimate thereof amounting to $6,255.55. ... It so happens that with respect to the year 1953-54 the rate under Section 39 was the same in 1957 as it was then, namely, 20 %— but this is purely accidental and occurred because the amount of the appellant’s taxable income did not exceed $20,000. ...