Search - 水晶光电 行业地位 发展趋势

Cameron was what colloquially was referred to at the time as a ‘‘dividend stripper ’ \ The questions and answers were as follows: Q. ... Cameron’s group needed — that it was to be as it was put in the evidence — a “daylight loan’’. ... December 24, 1961 — Sunday. December 25,1961 — Christmas. December 26,1961 — Boxing Day.) ...

Prior to the date of his death Wilson was the principal shareholder in Wilson Mining & Investment Company Ltd. ... Sec. 21 comprises several provisions in respect of ‘‘personal corporations’’ and subs. 1, 2 and 3 are as follows: " " 21. ... These expenses were disallowed on the ground that they were "" disbursements or expenses not wholly, exclusively and necessarily laid out or expended for the purpose of earning the income,’’ as provided by s. 6(a) of the Act, and which are not allowable " ‘ in computing the amount of the profits or gains to be assessed. ‘ ‘ The revenue of the Wilson Company came almost entirely from two sources, the Bond Investments and Premier Gold Mining Company. ...

I hesitate to give the word "‘ordinarily’’ any more precise interpretation than ‘in the customary course of events” and anyhow I cannot think that the element of time so predominates in its meaning that, unless the appellant resided in the United Kingdom for at least six months and a day she could not be said " " ordinarily ” to reside there in the year in question.” ... " Ordinarily resident’ also seems to me to have no such technical or special meaning. ... In my view, the words " " during such year’’ in section 9(a) mean merely ‘‘in the course of, or in such year’’. ...

& M. In 1964, the salary and bonus paid to her by D. & M. amounted to $16,330 (cf. ... & M., has loaned to D. & M. throughout that year the amount of $30,000.00; a loan which is greater than the value of the land. ... & M. at the following rates: The contents of this table are not yet imported to Tax Interpretations. ‘ ‘ These rates, states Mr. ...

It is thus this contract or arrangement, rather than the ‘ 1 agreement for the sale of the property ’ ’ fictitiously created by the subsection, which is referred to in the expression ‘‘the price fixed by the contract or arrangement’’. Thirdly, in the subsection the expression “rent or other consideration paid or given thereunder ’ ’ is used in contradistinction to the expression “the price fixed by the contract or arrangement ’ ’ the former being used with reference to rent or consideration for the use of the property during the lease or hiring and for the option itself while the latter includes the word “price” and appears to me to refer to the consideration to be given for the property under the terms of the contract in the event of the transaction resulting in the property vesting in the taxpayer. ... (ii)... the capital cost at which the lessee is deemed by subsection (1) to have acquired the property minus the fair market value, at the time the contract or arrangement was entered into, of the part of the property that is not depreciable property; ’ ’ As the property includes both land and improvements thereto and the improvements alone are depreciable property within the meaning of this provision and as the evidence indicates that the value of the land alone at the material time was $9,000 it would appear that the basis for the calculation of the deduction to which the appellant is entitled is $10,500. ...

" " In any such case a reference to the Board of Referees shall not be made, notwithstanding the provisions of sec. 5 of this Act.’’ ... The Crown’s appeal will, therefore, be allowed, and the British American Tobacco Co.’s appeal will be dismissed with costs. ’ ’ This judgment was upheld in the Court of Appeal, reported in [1941] 2 All E.R. 561. ... It should be noted that the words in the section are ‘‘a controlling interest ‘ ‘ not ‘‘the controlling interest ‘‘or’’ the control ’. ...

Section 6(1) of R.S.C. 1952, c. 89, of the Dominion Succession Duty Act provides: “Subject to the exemptions mentioned in section 7 of this Act, there shall be assessed, levied and paid at the rate provided for in the First Schedule of this Act duties upon or in respect of the following successions, that is to say,— (a) where the deceased was at the time of his death domiciled in a province of Canada, upon or in respect of the succession to all real or immovable property situated in Canada, and all personal property wheresoever situated; ’ ’ Section 2(m) provides: ‘ ‘succession’ means every past or future disposition of property, by reason whereof any person has or shall become beneficially entitled to any property or the income thereof upon the death of any deceased person, etc., etc.” ... But it seems to me equally clear that the effect of s. 33 of the Wills Act is to confer upon him a right to dispose of it. ’ And Stirling, L.J., at page 238, said: “By s. 1 of the Finance Act, 1894, there is imposed in the case of every person dying after August 1, 1894, estate duty ‘upon the principal value, ascertained,’ as in the Act mentioned, ‘of all property, real or personal, which passes on the death of such a person.’ ...

In 1929, the appellant, whose main occupation was and still is that of an important executive in a large company, and possessed of a substantial investment income, formed with a business acquaintance since deceased, and hereinafter called " " the managing director ”, "‘C‘‘ company, each acquiring 50 per cent of the issued shares. ... Batshaw, J., in his judgment removing the managing director and appointing the interim liquidator, said: “... the Court is of the opinion that the elementary rules of ordinary business morality would preclude the application of that by-law” (which gave the president a casting vote) “in favour of a president who sought to use same to perpetuate his corrupt administration...” ...

.,.58 Add Profit from sale of Assets 127,990.75 $4,868,906.33 From this there has been deducted for: Interest on borrowings $ 448,542.39 Bond Interest and Expense 609,835.00 Appropriation for depreciation 745,035.92 " for taxes 210,000.00 « for Pension Fund_ 54,679.67 2,068,092.98 Leaving a net profit of- $2,800,813.35 The Company would be assessed for the corporation tax on $2,800,813.35, subject perhaps to some adjustments. ... Now, the question for decision is whether the Surplus Account constituted 4 ‘undistributed income on hand, ‘ ‘ and whether the premium in question was, in fact, paid from that Account. ... If the Surplus Account here were made up of realized profits, and dealt with in that way by the Company, then I think the surplus must be treated as " " undistributed income on hand.’’ ...

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary has several definitions of the word ^construction” including: "‘The manner in which a thing is constucted or formed ’ ’. ... It was laid down by the Privy Council in the case of Montreal Coke & Mfg. ... (ii) in this case none of the profits whether profits divisible among the shareholders, profits subject to excess profits tax or profits available for income tax, was ascertainable for a certainty until the appeal had been heard and the final decision given. (111) all the expense in dispute was incurred before the final determination of what the profits, in any of those senses, amounted to; consequently the expense was allowable as a deduction for income tax and for excess profits tax purposes. ‘ ‘ As stated in the ‘‘ Editorial Note’’ the successive steps in the reasoning upon which the decision was based were as follows: " " (1) an admissible deduction must represent an outlay in order to earn profits, as distinct from a disbursement of profits earned; (2) an expense incurred in ascertaining the profits may be said to be an outlay in order to earn profits; (3) in the circumstances under consideration the profits were not ascertained until the appeal to the Special Commissioners had been heard and finally decided; (4) the legal and accountancy expenses of the appeal were, therefore, deductible for both taxes. ‘ ‘ The judgment is a lengthy and interesting one and I have been advised that it is now under appeal. ...