Search - 水晶光电 行业地位 发展趋势

In the case of British Insulated & Helsby Cables Ltd. v. Atherton, [1926] A.C. 205, Lord Cave, dealing with the question of what would constitute a capital expenditure, says (p. 213, in fine): "But when an expenditure is made, not only once and for all, but with a view to bringing into existence an asset or an advantage for the enduring benefit of a trade, I think that there is very good reason (in the absence of special circumstances leading to an opposite conclusion) for treating such an expenditure as properly attributable not to revenue but to capital....”? ... Samuel Jones & Co. (Devondale) Ltd. v. C.I.K., supra. 4. That to allow a deduction in full as an operating expense of an outlay such as this which brought into existence a new capital asset would be to frustrate the clear intent of the provisions of Section 11(1) (a) of the Act and the regulations passed thereunder in regard to capital cost allowances. 5. ...

The relevant sections are Income Tax Act, Section 12(1) (a): ‘ 12. (1) In computing income, no deduction shall be made in respect of (a) an outlay or expense except to the extent that it was made or incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income from property or a business of the taxpayer,” Section 11(1) (a): “11. (1) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a), (b) and (h) of subsection (1) of section 12, the following amounts may be deducted in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year: (a) such part of the capital cost to the taxpayer of property, or such amount in respect of the capital cost to the taxpayer of property, if any, as is allowed by regulation;” and Section 1102(1) (c) of the Regulations: “1102. (1) The classes of property described in this Part and in Schedule B shall be deemed not to include property (c) that was not acquired by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income,’’ In order to come within Section 1102(1) (ce) of the Regulations the buildings and equipment must have been acquired ‘‘for the purpose of gaining or producing income”. ... Clark & Son Limited v. M.N.R., 18 Tax A.B.C. 196; William Pitt Hotel Limited v. ...

Without restricting the generality of section 3 there shall be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year (b) amounts received in the year or receivable in the year (depending upon the method regularly followed by the taxpayer in computing his profit) as interest or on account or in lieu of payment of, or in satisfaction of interest; ’ ’ It may be noted that interest which is not received in the year is not income in the ordinary sense of the word because it does not come in. ...

Fraser & Co. Lid. v. M.N.R., [1949] A.C. 24; [1948] C.T.C. 297. The above principle was held by the House of Lords in the following words: “The provision in s. 5, sub-s. 1(a) of the Dominion Income War Tax Act, R.S.C. 1927, ce. 97, as amended by s. 10 of c. 34 of 8.C. 1940, that the Minister may make under the head of ‘depletion’ ‘such an allowance for the exhaustion of the... timber limits as he may deem just and fair,’ confers on him a discretion to determine whether the case before him is one for making any allowance at all and does not limit his discretion to determining the extent of the allowance to be made. ... C.R. 98; [1953] C.T.C. 203, where the Honourable President of the Court held that ‘*,.. the first proviso to section 6(n) of the Act set a top limit to the total amount of deductions in respect of depreciation that could be allowed in the case of assets acquired under the circumstances of controlling interest specified in it and while it does not direct the Minister to base his allowance of deductions in respect of the depreciation cf such assets on their cost to their former owner there is nothing in the proviso or elsewhere that precludes him from using such a base.” ...

He says, however, that he was forced to sell it and in the Notice of Appeal to this Court the reason assigned is stated as—‘ ‘ To raise funds for the completion and the expansion of the ‘Jack and Jill’ business and to pay for stock-in-trade.’’ ... Upon the completion of the Evanoff building in 1948, the appellant found that he could now enter the retail business; accordingly, he leased the property from Evanoff and with one of his brothers, opened a children’s wear store known as ‘‘ Jack and Jill”. ...

Funds, or as stated by you, $30,616.33 in Canadian Funds. ’ ’ Subsequently, it transpired that of the amount of $29,250.32 referred to in Mr. ...

On the back of that this statement appears: ‘This card presented to any U.S. immigrant inspector at a port of entry of the United States will be accepted as prima facie evidence of rightful holder’s status as a lawful permanent resident of the United States on date of issue ’ ’ and so on. ...

McLaughlin was not in a business at all, and that his farm operations in 1944 and 1945 were not ‘‘a trade or commercial or financial or other business or calling ” or ‘‘ office or employment’’ or ‘‘profession or calling” or ‘‘trade, manufacture or business’’ within the meaning of Section 3 of the Income War Tax Act. ...

BY AND BETWEEN: ROBERT SHERWOOD, of 440 Park Avenue in the City of New York, United States of America, acting in his capacity as special agent for undisclosed principals of South America, (hereinafter called the “Vendor”) — and — PARTY OF THE FIRST PART CANADIAN JAVELIN LIMITED, a body politic and corporate, duly incorporated according to the laws of Canada, with its head office and principal place of business at civic number 1010 St. ...

He had the authority for that principle not only in the words “wholly” and “exclusively” but in a statement in a judgment of this Court in Bentleys, Stokes & Lowless v. ... The case is thus not like that of the barrister travelling from his home to his professional chambers — which, in Newsom v. Robertson was the base of his operation — but resembles more closely that of the same barrister’s travelling between his chambers and the courts, the expense of which, had it involved expense, would, I apprehend, not have been regarded as personal or living expense and would, I also think, have been allowable as a deduction even under the stringent prohibition of the English statute. ...