Search - 江苏苏美达轻纺国际贸易有限公司 关税政策 最新动态

Shortt & Audrey Quinn v. M.N.R., [1960] CTC 78, 60 DTC 1056 THURLOW, J. ... Shortt, and the issue on which each case turns is whether or not the appellant is liable to pay the four per cent investment income surtax on the profits to which he or she was entitled of a business carried on under the name and style of James McTamney & Company. ... It is, I think, important to observe that, while the James McTamney & Company business was, by the will, vested in Maurice J. ...

The International Iron & Metal Co. Limited v. Minister of National Revenue, [1969] CTC 668, 69 DTC 5445 GIBSON, J. ... The voting shares of Burland Realty & Equipment Company Limited were held by the above group of persons and by one Sorie Rosenblatt. ... Goldblatt and Reuben Levy; that Burland Realty & Equipment Company Limited was controlled by the group of persons above set out in the respondent’s assumption and by Sorie Rosenblatt; and that as a consequence the appellant and Burland Realty & Equipment Company Limited were not associated corporations within the meaning of Section 39(4)* [2] of the Income Tax Act for the said taxation years. ...

Floor & Wall Covering Distributors Limited and Vina-Rug (Canada) Limited v. ... The owners and the number of shares of all the outstanding common shares (and there were no other voting shares issued in any of these companies) at all material times of each appellant company and of these two other companies were as follows: Floor & Wall Covering Distributors Limited J. ...

Esson & Sons Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1966] CTC 439, 66 DTC 5303 THURLOW, J. ... More recently in Alpine Drywall & Decorating Ltd. v. M.N.R., [1966] C.T.C. 359, Cattanach, J., while expressing doubt that there was any basic distinction between the case before him and that of B. ... Where, in the application of Section 39(4) a single person does not own sufficient shares to have control in the sense to which I have just referred, it becomes a question of fact as to whether any ‘group of persons’ does own such a number of shares. ’ ’ The definition of control as that arising from shareholding is supportd by the opinion of the House of Lords in British American Tobacco Co. ...

Pooler & Co. Ltd., 62 DTC 1321, [1962] CTC 527 (Ex. Ct.) THURLOW, J. ... Pooler & Co. Limited) of accounts in the name of C. J. Butler, Joseph Beaudry and E. ... Alexander von Glehn & Co. Ltd., 12 T.C. 232, and Imperial Oil Ltd. v. ...

Armstrong & Co. Ltd. v. The Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise, [1966] CTC 778, 66 DTC 5505 JACKETT, P. ... The lead slugs are remelted and the matrix board is discarded once the stamps are found to create proper impressions. ’ ’ It might also be mentioned, although this does not appear to be mentioned in the Tariff Board’s declaration, that it was established by the evidence before the Board, and it is common ground, that, in a common type of printing process, exactly the same steps of (a) production of lead slugs containing the wording it is desired to print and locking several of them in a chase, (b) application thereto of a matrix board so as to indent the matrix board with the characters from the lead slugs, and (ce) application of a sheet of raw rubber to the matrix board in such manner as to force the rubber into the indentations in the matrix board and curing the rubber while in that state are used to produce a rubber sheet that is used for the final stage of the printing process. ... In examining this question, it is to be borne in mind that it is common ground that the appellant’s only difficulty is to bring the articles in question within that part of the paragraph in Schedule III to which reference has already been made that reads, ‘ matrices... made... by... a manufacturer or producer for use exclusively in the manufacture or production of printed matter”. ...

-Ni ‘ Nicholas Detoro v. Minister of National: Revenue, [1965] CTC 321, 65 DTC 5194 CATTANACH, J. ... The appellant’s case is set out in his Notice of Appeal as follows: " At no relevant time has the Appellant purchased and sold real estate for the purpose of earning income and at no time has the Appellant dealt or traded in shares of the capital. stock of corporations as a business. ... George Street Ltd., together with a further realization of the shares of such company at a profit to the Appellant of $18,440.73 is income from a business within the meaning of the word as defined in the Income Tax Act. ’ ’ The question for determination is whether the profit realized on thé sale of the shares at 151 St. ...

& Co. Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1957] CTC 186, 57 DTC 1132 THURLOW, J. ... ’ ’ The way in which the Lord Justice Clerk applied the test is also of interest. ... The minutes are: December 11, 1928— Regarding B.C. limits. ‘ ‘—Nothing definite from J. ...

Osler, Hammond & Nanton Limited v. Minister of National Revenue, [1961] CTC 462, 61 DTC 1291 THORSON, P. ... Subject to the other provisions of this Part, income from a business or property is the profit therefrom for the year. ’ ’ and Section 139(1) (e) defines ‘‘business’’ as follows: “139. (1) In this Act, (e) ‘business’ includes a profession, calling, trade, manufacture or undertaking of any kind whatsoever and includes an adventure or concern in the nature of trade but does not include an office or employment.” ... After the board had approved of the sale it instructed him to dispose of them and he did so through the partnership Osler, Hammond & Nanton which sold the shares for the appellant on the Toronto Stock Exchange. ...

McCart & Company Limited v. His Majesty the King, [1938-39] CTC 220 MACLEAN, J. ... In pursuance of the authority conferred upon the Minister of National Revenue by such Orders in Council, the Minister proceeded from time to time to fix, in writing, the value for duty of certain named goods, in the case of fruits and vegetables at so many cents per pound, and this would be communicated to customs and excise officers throughout Canada, by what are called ‘‘ Appraisers’ Bulletins’’ signed by the Commissioner of Customs, or the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. ... That section provides that ‘‘although any duty of customs has been overpaid, or although, after any duty of customs has been charged and paid, it appears or is judicially established that the same was charged under an erroneous construction of the law. no such overcharge shall be returned after the expiration of three years from the date of such payment, unless application for payment has been previously made. ’ The suppliant, I think, through its authorized customs broker, made claims, orally and in writing, for a refund of the alleged excess of duties paid upon the goods in question. ...