Search - 江苏苏美达轻纺国际贸易有限公司 关税政策 最新动态

This is confirmed by Exhibit R-l which is a detailed letter from Revenue Canada in Toronto to Richter & Partners, the receiver, dated May 6, 1983. ...

The term ‘‘uncertified progress claims” as used herein, means progress claims for which architect’s certificates have not yet issued. 2 *lt seems clear from the Co/ford judgment that “holdback” as used therein is used in the wider sense and includes “uncertified progress claims”. 3 TSaid paragraph 85B(1)(b) as it applied to the taxation year 1953 reads as follows: 85B. (1) In computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year, (b) every amount receivable in respect of property sold or services rendered in the course of the business in the year shall be included notwithstanding that the amount is not receivable until a subsequent year unless the method adopted by the taxpayer for computing income from the business and accepted for the purpose of this Part does not require him to include any amount receiv able in computing his income for a taxation year unless it has been received in the year; Note: The said paragraph applies also to the taxation year herein under review, ie, — 1968. 4 *l use the phrase “at law having regard to the Co/ford decision. ...

In the event that any partner ("withdrawing partner") wishes to withdraw from the partnership or reduce his partnership interest and concurrently therewith a person ("new partner") wishes to become a member of the partnership to the extent of the reduction amount (as defined below) the withdrawing partner may give to the partnership 30 days' notice in writing ("notice") (which may be waived by all the partners) stipulating the amount by which the withdrawing partner wishes to reduce his partnership interest which amount may be the whole of his partnership Interest (” reduction amount”) and stipulating the identity of the proposed new partner. ...

However, the most important letter in substantive terms was that of March 1, 1984, from Mr W G Clarke, Regional Chief, Tax Interpretations — Excise to Foster Business Services Ltd, which was acting for the applicant. ...

In making that computation, the appellant included, pursuant to subparagraph 89(1)(l)(ii) of the Act,* [1] a sum of $1,350,555 in respect of the disposition that it had made, on December 23, 1976, of certain shares of Richards, Melling & Co. ...

The respondent should, in my view, be entitled to its costs in the Trial Division but should pay the appellant’s cost of the appeal. 1 See paragraphs 11 (1)(a) and 20(5)(e) and Regulation 1100(8). 2 + Subsection 84A(3) sets forth a special rule applicable to railway companies. ...

In my view, Judge Taylor erred and Judge Teskey was correct — the subsidy in this case is a taxable allowance under paragraph 6(1)(b) of the Act. ...

The matter having been remitted to the respondent was considered by him as directed with the result that a new decision was rendered in respect of the four publications, the relevant portion of which follows: I have reviewed these publications in light of the judgment rendered by the Federal Court of Appeal in “E W Bickle and the Minister of National Revenue”, and I have concluded that the publications “Rapid Auto Mart Magazine” and “Buy Sell & Trade” are newspapers for purposes of the Excise Tax Act. ...

Actual in- Compare—CIR v Holder, [1932] All ER 265 at 271 and Bennett & White Construction Co Ltd v MNR, [1949] CTC 1; 4 DTC 514. terest is one of those. ...

In The King v Henry K Warn pole & Company, Limited, [1931] S.C.R. 494 at 496, Anglin, CJC speaking for the majority of the Court said: I was, at the hearing of this appeal, strongly of the view that the sample goods in question were subject to the tax sought to be collected in this case. ...