Search - 水晶光电 行业地位 发展趋势

Deduction from corporate tax: manufacturing and processing profits (1) There may be deducted from the tax otherwise payable under this Part by a corporation for a taxation year an amount equal to the aggregate of (a) 9% of the lesser of (i) the amount, if any, by which the corporation's Canadian manufacturing and processing profits for the year exceed the least of the amounts determined under paragraphs 125(1)(a) to (d) in respect of the corporation for the year, and (3)(a) "Canadian manufacturing and processing profits" — Canadian manufacturing and processing profits" of a corporation for a taxation year means such portion of the aggregate of all amounts each of which is the income of the corporation for the year from an active business carried on in Canada as is determined under rules prescribed for that purpose by regulation made on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance to be applicable to the manufacturing or processing in Canada of goods for sale or lease; and (b) Manufacturing or processing — “manufacturing or processing" does not include (iv) Operating an oil or gas well, 5200. ... For convenience' sake, I repeat subsection 125.1(3)(a) of the Act: (3)(a) "Canadian manufacturing and processing profits" — “Canadian manufacturing and processing profits" of a corporation for a taxation year means such portion of the aggregate of all amounts each of which is the income of the corporation for the year from an active business carried on in Canada as is determined under rules prescribed for that purpose by regulation made on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance to be applicable to the manufacturing or processing in Canada of goods for sale or lease;... ...

Inferences issue As I understand it, the appellant quarrels with the trial judge’s finding that the information sought pursuant to the paragraph 231.2(1)(a) “ requirements” was not being sought at the request of the RCMP for the purpose of prosecuting the criminal charges referred to above. ... & O.R. loc. cit., 65 N.R. 224n; R. v. Manninen (1983), 8 C.C.C. (3d) 193 at p. 199, 3 D.L.R. (4th) 541, 48 O.R. (2d) 731 (Ont. ... La Forest, J., speaking for the Court, noted, at page 992, that a remedy under that subsection is available: ”... not only in the case of an actual interference with the guaranteed rights, but also when an apprehension of such an interference at a future trial can be established by an applicant. ...

.: — This appeal from a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada arises out of an assessment of the appellant’s income for the taxation year 1990, which included a portion of the cost of an expense-paid trip taken by the appellant and his wife to New Orleans on the basis that the appellant received in that year a taxable “benefit” under paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5th Supplement), c. 1, as amended. ... Having said that, I note that the courts are having increasing recourse to such Bulletins and they appear quite willing to see an ambiguity in the statute — as a reason for using them — when the interpretation given in a Bulletin squarely contradicts the interpretation suggested by the Department in a given case or allows the interpretation put forward by the taxpayer. ...

In British Motor Syndicate, Ltd v Taylor & Son, Ltd (6), Stirling, J, pointed out that ([1900] 1 Ch at p 583) “The first meaning assigned to the word ‘use’ in JOHNSON’S DICTIONARY is ‘to employ to any purpose’; it is, therefore, a word of wide signification.” ... A recent statement of the principle is that of Viscount Simonds in Minister of National Revenue v Anaconda American Brass Ltd [[1956] AC 85 at 100, [1955] CTC 311, 55 DTC 1220.]: “The income tax law of Canada, as of the United Kingdom, is built upon the foundations described by Lord Clyde in Whimster & Co v Inland Revenue Commissioners, (1925) 12 TC 813, 823, in a passage cited by the Chief Justice which may be repeated. ... Compare, for example, the situation in R v Henry K Wampole & Company, Limited, [1931] S.C.R. 494. ...

The opening paragraph of the original agreement reads as follows: “The undersigned, JACK MENDLEWITZ (as Purchaser) hereby agrees to and with BRAMPTON REALTY LIMITED (as Vendor) through Drillich & Company Realty Limited, agent for the Vendor, to purchase all and singular the lands and premises owned by the Vendor lying in the Borough of Scarborough, being on the north side of Sheppard Avenue East and the East Side of Birchmount Road, and being sufficient lands for two apartment buildings containing 307 suites (each site of approximate equal size), one of which sites is at the corner of Sheppard and Birchmount Avenues, at the price or sum of EIGHT HUNDRED AND FORTY-FOUR THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS ($844,250.00) of lawful money of Canada, payable as follows.” ... Thus in Turney v Zhilka, [1959] S.C.R. 578, at 583-4 where in the absence of a power of waiver the Supreme Court held, inter alia, that specific performance could not be granted, Judson, J, said: The obligations under the contract, on both sides, depend upon a future uncertain event, the happening of which depends entirely on the will of a third party — the Village council. This is a true condition precedent — an external condition upon which the existence of the obligation depends. ...

During its 1972 taxation year the respondent paid taxable dividends aggregating $4,700,000 as follows: June 1, 1971 $ 750,000 December 29, 1971 $2,000,000 February 24, 1972 $1,950,000 Withholding tax at the rate of 15% was paid on those dividends. section 133 of the amended Act provides a special tax treatment for non-resident-owned investment corporations. ... The only issue is whether this amount is to be refunded, in respect of dividends paid in 1972, or whether the right to refund will arise, when taxable dividends are paid at a time subsequent to the end of its 1972 taxation year.”* [* If the plaintiff has not paid, or does not pay, any dividends after the end of its 1972 taxation year, then, on the defendant’s interpretation of the section in question, the plaintiff will never receive an allowable refund in respect of the tax levied.] ... As a result of course, the cross-appeal should be dismissed with costs. 1 133. (6) If the return of a non-resident-owned investment corporation’s income for a taxation year has been made within 4 years from the end of the year the Minister (a) may, upon mailing the notice of assessment for the year, refund, with out application therefor, its allowable refund for the year; and (b) shall make such a refund after mailing the notice of assessment if appli cation therefor has been made in writing by the corporation within 4 years from the end of the year. 2 *“ The amount referred to is its taxable income for 1972. 3 2. (1) An income tax shall be paid as hereinafter required upon the taxable income for each taxation year of every person resident in Canada at any time in the year. (2) The taxable income of a taxpayer for a taxation year is his income for the year minus the deductions permitted by Division C. ...

.: — This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada in which the appeal by the respondent, Fording Coal Limited (“Fording”) from a reassessment of its 1985 through 1990 tax years was allowed. ... Subsection 245(1), as it then read, stated: Artificial Transactions — In computing income for the purposes of the Act, no deduction may be made in respect of a disbursement or expense made or incurred in respect of a transaction or operation that, if allowed, would unduly or artificially reduce income. ... Strayer J.A.: — I have read the reasons of my colleague McDonald J.A. ...

VIII, Montreal, Wilson & Lafleur, 1909, page 4: I have said that the idea of representation is fundamental to a mandate. ... Smith, J. explained with respect to that province: ”... a wholesaler will not obtain a permit unless he agrees to be a collector...”. ... Charest Ltée & Rene Tessier Ltée v. New Brunswick (unreported) (February 3, 1986), New Brunswick 28/25/CA. 2 Mr. ...

Judgment A Quo The trial judge first recognized that "Prior to 1972, child care expenses were treated as non-deductible personal expenses for income tax purposes". [14] On paragraph 18(1)(a), the trial judge said that in his opinion that in his opinion that paragraph should be interpreted "in view of the social and economic realities of the times" and that he was not bound “ a cluster of cases decided in the 1950s and 1960s based on the reasoning of a decision made in 1891”. ... The federal government's Bulletin IT-487, April 26, 1982, entitled "General Limitation on Deduction of Outlays or Expenses”, states in part: (b) ”... for the purpose... ... On the question of economic rights and section 15, I adopt these observation of Hugessen, J.A. in Smith, Kline & French Laboratories Ltd. v. ...

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. ...