Search - 水晶光电 行业地位 发展趋势

  [1] [1969] 2 Ex. C.R. 149, [1969] C.T.C. 219. [2] [1967] S.C.R. 223. [3] [1961] S.C.R. 98. ...

& Pringle, Toronto. Solicitor for the respondent: E. S. MacLatchy, Ottawa. [1] [1953] 1 S.C.R. 3, [1952] C.T.C. 334, [1952] D.T.C. 1187. [2] [1951] Ex. ...

Therefore, because she saw no obligation imposed either by the case law or by the Income Tax Act (the “ Act ”) to defer the deduction of a current running expense, Simpson J. allowed the complete deduction of the expense in the 1983 taxation year. 9 Although the parties had agreed that no argument would be directed at which method of accounting provided a truer picture of income, Simpson J. found that “the search for a truer picture is not relevant in the case of a running expense which the taxpayer does not elect to defer.” 2. ...

The learned trial Judge says in his judgment ([1944] C.T.C. at p. 35) that he finds it "‘necessary to find a name for such a contract’’, and that he would say 1 " it was one of lease and hire of work rather than a contract of agency’’. He adds: ‘‘ Looking at the contract as a whole, I am satisfied that the plaintiff is not an ‘agent’ or ‘servant' of the Crown.” ...

Relying on this Court's decision in James Richardson & Sons, Ltd. v. ... Attorney General of Canada, [1962] S.C.R. 729, [1962] C.T.C. 35; 62 D.T.C. 1236, and James Richardson & Sons, Ltd. v. ... This Court had occasion to consider subsection 231(3) of the Act in James Richardson & Sons, Ltd. v. ...

The distinction between direct and indirect taxation has been fully explored by my brothers Martland and Dickson, in the course of their respective reasons for judgment in the recent case of Canadian Industrial Gas & Oil Limited v Government of Saskatchewan et al, [1977] 6 WWR 607, and I accept the definition adopted by them both in the following short paragraph: The dividing line between a direct and an indirect tax is referable to and ascertainable by the “general tendencies of the tax and the common understanding of men as to those tendencies. ... In that case Rand, J stated at p 251: "Lord Greene in the same case (British Columbia v Esquimalt & Nanaimo Railway Company, [1950] AC 87) speaks of the ‘fundamental difference’ between the ‘economic tendency’ of an owner to try to shift the incidence of a tax and the ‘passing on’ of the tax regarded as the hallmark of an indirect tax. ... In the instant case consideration must be given to what was decided by this Court with respect to federal sales tax, in a case mentioned by Hughes, CJNB: The King v Henry K Wampole & Co Ltd, [1931] S.C.R. 494, where tax was claimed on samples produced for free distribution. ...

During the fiscal period noted above the appellant declared and paid the following dividends: Amount of Taxable Dividend Date Paid $ 750,000 June 1,1971 $2,000,000 December 29, 1971 $1,950,000 February 24, 1972 At the time these dividends were paid, the appellant withheld 15% and remitted these taxes in the amount of $705,000 to the respondent. ... This equation may be represented in this form: ART AR = x D CTI or D The application of this formula thus requires the determination of the ART and the CTI of the appellant at the time in question, which time is, for our purposes, immediately prior to the payment of the dividend on February 24, 1972. ...

Ground 2: Common Law Rights to Resist Discovery and Against SelfIncrimination I am prepared to assume without deciding that the common law privileges against self-incrimination were not subsumed in the Charter provisions — an issue which is more squarely raised before this Court in Thomson Newspapers v. ... Solloway Mills & Co., [1931] 1 D.L.R. 831, a decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, and the second was Triplex Safety Glass Co. v. ...

The appellant submits that as the rent paid ‘‘shall be deemed to be on account of the price of the property and not for its use ’ ’ the price should for the purpose of computing his income be deemed to be $608,516, this amount being arrived at as follows: Annual rental of $3,100.08 for 200 years_.. $620,016.00 Option price to purchase property, 19,500.00 $639,516.00 Less land at fair market value as of October, 1960 31,000.00 $608,516.00 Five per cent of this amount is $30,425.80 which is the capital cost allowance claimed by the appellant. ...

In 1952, Parliament eliminated from the Income Tax Act the rule in Section 13 (Section 10 of the Income War Tax Act) whereby the deduction of losses incurred in accessory business ventures was prohibited by providing that a taxpayer’s income “ shall be deemed to be not less than his income for the year from his chief source of income’’, and in 1958 Section 27(1) (e) was amended to provide for business losses being carried back or forward against income from any business instead of income from the same business only. ...