Search - 水晶光电 行业地位 发展趋势

Excluding those made in 1945 and 1946, the annual sales from Plan 191 were as follows: 1947 — 14 1951 — 2 1948— 8 1952 — 3 1949— 3 1953 — 4 1950— 8 À small number of sales were also made in 1954, 1955 and 1956. ... For the years 1947 and 1948 the matter is to be determined under the provisions of the Income War Taz Act, which was as follows: " " 3. For the purposes of this Act, ‘ income ‘ means the annual net profit or gain or gratuity whether ascertained and capable of computation as being wages, salary, or other fixed amount or unascertained as being fees or emoluments, or as being profits from a trade or commercial or financial or other business or calling directly or indirectly received by a person... or from any trade, manufacture or business...; and shall include... and also the annual profit or gain from any other source including”? ...

" ‘ Provided, second, after the adoption of the said new name the HUDSON BAY FUR COMPANY shall have the right for a maximum period ending December 31, 1946 to use and only to use in combination with said new name the clause " ‘ Formerly Hudson Bay Fur Company ’ ’ and where the words ‘‘ Hudson ’ ’ and "Bay” of said clause are displayed in extent and prominence no greater than the said new name. ... " " Accordingly, revised assessments will be issued in due course in respect to the 1936 and 1938 fiscal periods of your company. ‘ ‘ A notice of assessment dated October 2, 1940, for the year 1938 was filed as exihibit 9. ... Staveley Coal & Iron Co. [1928] 2 K.B. 405 applied. ° Decision of Rowlatt, J. affirmed.” ...

Cosmopolitan Import & Export Limited was incorporated in 1946 but remained an inactive company until 1958. ... & Company Inc. and International Iron & Metal Co. Limited were enabled to enter into certain brokerage and commercial relationships which had not hitherto existed. ... I trust this reply gives you all the information you require. ’ ’ On these facts, I am of opinion that Cosmopolitan Import & Export Limited was ‘‘activated’’ for the express purpose of receiving the commissions from Luria Bros., Inc. and that, during the material times, it was not actively engaged in a business, except incidentally, which had nothing to do with the earning of the commissions, the subject matter of this appeal. ...

. '■ •> ’ I turn now to the appellant’s alternative submission, that the Corporation itself carried on business in Canada during the material times. ... By clause (d) of this subsection, tax is imposed in respect of ‘‘rent, royalty or a similar payment, including, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing, any such a payment (i) for the use in Canada of property, (ii) in respect of an invention used in Canada, or (iii) for any property, trade name, design or other thing whatsoever used or sold in Canada, but not including (A) a royalty or similar payment on or in respect of a copyright, or (B) a payment in respect of the use by a railway company of railway rolling stock as defined by paragraph (25) of section 2 of the Railway Act; ’ The assessments are founded on the assumption that the sums in question were ‘‘rent... or a similar payment including but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing, any such a payment for the use in Canada of property’’ within the meaning of this subsection. On behalf of the appellant, it was submitted that the word ‘‘rent’’ is a technical term used to refer to a profit issuing from real property, that the words ‘ or any similar payment including any such payment for the use of property’’ which follow ‘‘rent’’ in Section 106 are to be construed as meaning payments having the characteristics of rent and that the payments in question do not have such characteristics, there being no certainty in the agreement as to the amount to be paid or as to the time when payment is to be made. ...

Asked if he considered the asset, appearing in Adam & Co. Inc., of the notes of Angus Corporation, Adam replied negatively and supplied this information (p. 16): " " A. ... I would consider the financial position of the maker of the notes as at the date of death. ’ ’ Kent admitted that he had before him the balance sheets of Adam & Co. ... It was a loan on the same terms to Adams & Co. Ine. as Grampian loaned the Money to Adam & Co. ...

The second appeal is in respect of land in Halifax referred to as the ‘ ‘ Piercey property ’ ’. ... Johns at cost, $60,000, to Gelinas & Dabbin, for stores construction; and a sale in Halifax at cost, $17,000, to Capital Realties. ...

It was submitted by counsel for defendant that his client ‘was not a manufacturer or a producer within the meaning of the Act, for two reasons: firstly, because the word manufacturer or producer is not an adequate term to express the builder of a Ship; secondly, because the word manufacturer or producer as used in the Act connotes manufacturing or producing in the way of a business and does not refer to an isolated transaction. ‘ ‘ Producer ‘ is defined: In the Oxford Dictionary 1. ... Miller, J., in delivering judgment for the Court of Appeals, after stating that the defendant company was incorporated "‘for the purpose of constructing, using and providing one or more dry-docks, or wet-docks, or other conveniences and structures for building, raising, repairing and coppering vessels and steamers of every description,’’ said (at p. 488): " " The act under which the defendant was incorporated was of a special character, and the specification of the business which the defendant was authorized to carry on, under its charter, which states the general purpose and object of the incorporation, does not bring it within the provision of sec. 3 of said Act of 1880, which exempts manufacturing corporations from its provisions as to taxation. ... Smith, J. delivering the judgment of the majority of the Court, said (p. 493): " " The view taken in the court below (that the lumber consumed by the defendant in building operations was produced in the ordinary course of business for sale and not specifically for use by the defendant within the meaning of sec. 87(d)) would result in the introduction of an exception to the general rule that all goods produced or manufactured are to pay a. tax, and would amount to a discrimination in favour of a particular consumer. ...

Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit 1, is a document entitled ‘ Stock Purchase Plan for Employees — Richfield Oil Corporation’, which document comprises two parts, viz: PART I—The Plan’, PART II—Declaration OF TRUST’. 4. ... The Company will make an annual contribution of a sum based upon the ratio of its profits to invested capital which will adjust the total monthly contributions made by the Company to the following schedule: Company Contribution Per cent of Profits as per cent of to Invested Capital Member Contribution Up to but less than 11 % 50% 11 % but less than 12 % 55% 12% but less than 13 % 60% 13% but less than 14% 65% 14% but less than 15% 70% 15 % or over 75% ” The plan further provides that “Invested Capital shall mean the total of all Capital Stock and Surplus (or equivalent) accounts and Long Term Debt of the Company as of the beginning of the preceding calendar year, as reflected in its printed Annual Report to stockholders’’. ... Fordham, Q.C., in the Tax Appeal Board. decision, ‘ ‘ Whatever may be the outcome of this appeal, there is no all- around avoidance of tax; there is simply a shift, as appellant’s counsel aptly put it, in the incidence of the income tax burden. ...

There is no definition of ‘ ‘ prepared roofings’’ in the Excise Tax Act nor in the Schedule under the heading of ‘‘Certain building materials’’. ... Planters Nut & Chocolate Co. Ltd., [1952] Ex. C.R. 91; [1951] C.T.C. 366, and The Queen v. ... The defendant’s expert witness considered that coverings over balconies, patios, verandahs and buildings were roofs and that Kool Vent products installed on these roofs were ‘‘ prepared roofing ’ \ In support of the plaintiff’s contention that the goods known as “Kool Vent Awnings, Canopies, Marquees and Umbrellas’’ were not “prepared roofings’’ three expert witnesses were heard. ...

The items put forward by the respondent as operating expenses of her business for the 1959 taxation year, not taken into account in making the assessment on that year, are as follows: Cheques Cash Total (1) Rent paid to Kamlo Hotel $ 475.40 $ 500.00 $ 975.40 (2) Rent for apartment at 1095 Bute St. 180.00 1,155.00 1,835.00 (3) Rent paid to Shirley Milne apt. occupied by her 2,100.00 2,100.00 (4) Rent paid for additional suites 1,170.00 1,170.00 (5) Legal fees 425.00 500.00 925.00 (6) Telephone inspection 1,000.00 1,000.00 (7) Payment for assistance to girls — 100.00 900.00 1,000.00 (8) Payments to casual employees 150.00 150.00 (9) Protection fees, — 9,000.00 9,000.00 (10) Liquor payment fees 2,600.00 2,600.00 Totals for 1959 taxation year $1,330.40 $18,925.00 $20,255.40 Items put forward by the respondent as operating expenses of her business during her 1960 taxation year which were not taken into account in making the assessment. for that year, are as follows: Cheques Cash Total (1) Rent paid to Shirley Milne for suite occupied by her for 11 months $ 1,925.00 $ 1,925.00 (2) Legal fees 1,000.00 1,000.00 (3) Telephone inspection 1,000.00 1,000.00 (4) Purchase of entire issue of Flash newspaper, 500.00 500.00 (5) Rent paid for additional suites 1,300.00 1,800.00 (6) Rent paid for suites at 1107 Howe St. ... The second item applicable to the 1959 and 1960 taxation vears is a claim, the rent of for ‘‘ at least’’ one other suite leased at all times from April 1959 at an ‘‘average’’ rental of $130 per month. ... W. deSantis — 360.00 (4) Legal fees —--— — 925.00 (5) Paid for assistance to girls 100.00 (6) Paid to casual employee — 150.00 Total_. $3,270.40 For the year 1960 the respondent is entitled to deduct as business expenses a total amount of $8,070 for the reasons outlined above, such total being made up as follows: (1) Rent paid for suite occupied by Shirley Milne $1,155.00 (2) Legal fees 1,000.00 (3) Commission on bail bonds 5,400.00 (4) Rent paid for Vincent Lodge 515.00 Total $8,070.00 It was contended on behalf of the respondent that since she had filed tax returns on a net worth basis, which had been accepted by the Minister for the 1954, 1955, 1956 and 1957 taxation years, that there was no justification for. the Minister in making arbitrary assessments under Section 46(6) of the Act, nor for imposing a penalty for evasion of tax under Section 56 of the Act. ...