Search - 江苏苏美达轻纺国际贸易有限公司 关税政策 最新动态

The deductions were claimed under the United Kingdom Income Tax Act. 1918, Schedule E, Rule 9, which reads: ‘ " 9. ... It must be made for the purpose of earning the profits. ‘ ‘ And in Robert Addie d Sons’ Collieries v. ... Moreover, the words ascertained ’ and ' unascertained ’ appear in a parallel construction, namely, "‘whether ascertained and capable of computation as being..., or unascertained as being... ’’; and both equally relate to what precedes them. ...

The plaintiff alternatively claims the sum of $1,827.34, plus a penalty of $500.00 under the provisions of Section 119 of said chapter 179, as amended, now Section 61 of chapter 100, R.S.C. 1952, which is as follows: ‘‘ 61. ... The supplement to Murray’s English Dictionary, published in 1933, the original of which was published in 1893, gives what was then a recent meaning of the word ‘ ‘ component ’ ’ as follows: “applied specially to the separate parts of motor cars and bicycles. Hence attributively and combined as component maker, component built. ’ ’ While the circumstances provided for thereby are not before this Court, the words used in subsection (8) of Section 80 of chapter 179, R.S.C. 1927, as amended, now Section 23(3), R.S.C. 1952, are of assistance: “23. (3) The tax imposed by this section or by section 28 is not payable in the case of goods that are purchased or imported by a manufacturer licensed under this Part or under section 129 of The Excise Act, and that are to be incorporated into and form a constituent or component part of an article or product that is subject to an excise tax under this Part or to an excise duty under The Excise Act.” ...

The Refinery imported from the United States, or purchased from domestic producers or wholesalers, a considerable quantity of what is known as ‘‘gas oil,’’ which it sold under the name of "‘tractor fuel, ‘ and sometimes as " ‘ gas oil, ‘ ‘ without further processing or manufacture, and without any change in the structure of such product. ... <A dispute arose between the Refinery and the Department of National Revenue as to whether the mixing of raw naphtha and gas oil, or raw naphtha and kerosene, constituted a " " manufacture, ‘ ‘ and the Department ruled that it did, and in this I concur. ... There seems to have been a disagreement between the Refinery and the Revenue Auditor regarding the standard or grade of certain oil products which the Refinery imported or purchased under one name, and sold under another name, for example, a product imported as ‘ 4 gas oil ‘ ‘ was sold as ‘‘tractor oil, ‘ ‘ and apparently a distinction was made between them for taxation purposes. ...

In its return of income for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1933, Pioneer Laundry & Dry Cleaners Limited included as depreciation the following items: Rate Depreciation charged off Year per cent Total previous Amount this Nature of article acquired Cost per annum charged year Machinery & equip ment 1932 $146,690 10 $14,131 15 Automobiles 1932 14,675 20 2,935 08 Horses & wagons 1932 1,352 10---------------- 135 25 Furniture & fixtures... 1932 5,740 10 — 574 07 forming a total of $17,775.55. ... The said last mentioned company on 1st April, 1932, acquired all the physical assets of the following companies, that is to say: Pioneer Laundry & Dry Cleaners Limited, Cascade Laundry & Dry Cleaners Limited, Dominion Laundry & Dry Cleaners Limited, B.C. ... Section 9 says {inter alia): There shall be assessed, levied and paid upon the income during the preceding year of every person (a) residing or ordinarily resident in Canada during such year; * # © + # a tax at the rates applicable to persons other than corporations and joint stock companies set forth in the First Schedule of this Act upon the amount of income in excess of the exemptions provided in this Act: Provided that the said rates shall not apply to corporations and joint stock companies. 2. ...

Basically the Minister’s case is that the appellant is not entitled to the capital cost allowance claimed because the patent cost the appellant nothing but the legal expenses of obtaining it and in support of this position he challenged the evidence that the expenses in question were incurred and submitted that even if they or some portion of them were incurred they did not constitute any part of the ‘ ‘ cost ’ ’ or the ‘ ‘ capital cost ’ ’ or the ‘ actual capital cost’’ of the patent within the meaning of these expressions as used in the Income Tax Act and the Regulations made pursuant thereto. ... By Section 12(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, it is provided that in computing income, no deduction shall be made in respect of an outlay, loss or replacement of capital, a payment on account of capital or an allowance in respect of depreciation, obsolescence or depletion except as expressly permitted by Part I of the Act but by Section 11(1) (a) it is also provided that: “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;” Section 1100(1) (c) of the Income Tax Regulations as applicable to the year 1954 provided that: “1100. (1) Under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 11 of the Act, there is hereby allowed to a taxpayer, in computing his income from a business or property, as the case may be, deductions for each taxation year equal to (c) such amount as he may claim in respect of a property of class 14 in Schedule B not exceeding the lesser of (i) the amount for the year obtained by apportioning the capital cost to him of the property equally over the life of the property remaining at the time the cost was incurred, or (ii) the undepreciated capital cost to him as of the end of the taxation year (before making any deduction under this subsection for the taxation year) of property of the class;’’ Schedule B, Class 14 reads in part as follows: ‘ ‘ Schedule B CLASS 14 Property that is a patent, franchise, concession or licence for a limited period in respect of property...” ... That subsection provides that in the case of property held at the commencement of the 1949 taxation year, for the purposes of regulations made under Section 11(1) (a) of the Act, the property (in this case the patent) ‘‘ shall be deemed to have been acquired at the commencement of the year at a capital cost equal to the actual capital cost’’ less the amount therein mentioned. ...

In February 1967 the respondent pleaded guilty to each of the said charges and was fined as follows on the charges in the first of the informations: 1960 — $10,000.00 1963 — 2,000.00 1961 — 2,000.00 1964 — 2,000.00 1962 — 2,000.00 1965 — 2,000.00 and was fined $5,000 on the charge in the other information. By Notices of Re-assessment made and dated May 2, 1967 (which, as already indicated, was subsequent to the laying of the informations) the Minister re-assessed the respondent for tax for each of his taxation years 1960 to 1965 and increased the tax for each of the years* [1] and, in addition and purportedly pursuant to Section 56(2) of the Act, assessed penalties as follows for the respective years: 1960 — $2,142.89 1963 — 3,954.95 1961 — 3,156.79 1964 — 4,035.89 1962 — 506.88 1965 — 2,336.85 The Minister had not prior to the said re-assessments on May 2, 1967 assessed or re-assessed the respondent for a penalty pursuant to either Section 56(1) or Section 56(2) for any or all of the said taxation years. ...

ALEXANDER COLE 650 BRIAR HILL AVENUE TORONTO 12, ONTARIO Calculation of Profit: Capital invested by taxpayer in 1949 $ 8,700.00 Add: Net Mortgage interest earned by taxpayer in years 1949 to 1956 inclusive— 1949, 1950 $ 559.13 1951 563.06 1952.’. 1,420.29 1953................................................................... 2,187.38 1954 comme 2,012.47 1955 2,505.40 1956 2,244.51 11,492.24 Additional capital invested—1951 $ 1,300.00 —1952 18,000.00 — 1955 2,547.45 21,847.45 $42,039.69 Deduct: Withdrawals of Capital — 1953 $ 1,500.00 — 954 13,000.00 — 1956 16,500.00 $381,000.00 $11,039.69 Proceeds of Sale..... — 32,200.00 $21,160.31 Deduct: Mortgage bonuses and discounts taxed in hands of taxpayer — 1953 $ 236.87 — 1954 3,479.83 — 1955............_.. 2,440.71 Mortgage bonuses and discounts not taxed in hands of taxpayer due to Statutory Limitations under Section 46(4) of the Income Tax Act 4,087.32 $10,244.23 Profit $10,916.08” It was agreed that the figure $10,916.08 corresponded to the actual accrued entitlement of the appellant of bonuses on the mortgages on a pro rata basis in respect to the second mortgages held by this so-called syndicate at this material time. ... & Ad. 172, which shows that an assignment by one partner of his share to the other does put an end to the partnership, as indeed must obviously be the case. ... The Partnership Act, 1890, leaves the matter in doubt, because the Act provides by s. 46 that the rules of equity and common law applicable to partnership shall continue in force except in so far as they are inconsistent with the express provisions of the Act, and it is very arguable whether the addition of other causes of dissolution is inconsistent with a section which expresses certain causes. ’ ’ Apparently, the sections regarding dissolution of partnership which were included in the English Partnership Act, in 1890, have been transposed unchanged into The Partnerships Act, R.S.O. 1960, c. 288, and so the statutory enactments are identical in this matter. ...

Under section 103 of the Companies Act, 1929, of the United Kingdom, 19 & 20 Geo. ... If " " Canadian ’ ‘ means ‘ ‘ resident in Canada ‘ ‘ it cannot also mean "‘non-resident in Canada.” ... The term " ‘ Canadian, when applied to a company, should be dealt with similarly and be regarded as meaning a company incorporated in Canada. ...

According to Section 76(2), the appellant, in 1958, had the right to deduct. ‘ There may be deducted ’ an amount not exceeding the amount of the special payment minus the aggregate of the amounts that were deductible. ... It may well, for a particular ‘ ‘ exempt ’ ’ year, result in a loss that will be deductible in computing the taxable income for some other year in respect of which the respondent is not ‘‘exempt’’ under Section 62. I find further support for my view as to what was ‘ ‘ deductible ’ ’ under old Section 76 in computing income for a particular year in the fact that, when Parliament intended that amounts shall not be regarded as ‘‘deductible’’ to such an extent as to create a loss, it went to some pains to define the amount deductible as not exceeding what the income for the year would be if the deduction in question were not allowed. ...

" (b) in Schedule IT, at the rate set opposite to each item in the said schedule. ‘ ‘ Schedule II to which sec. 80 refers contains (inter alia) the following item: " 3. ... The word " " producer ‘ ‘ is defined: In the Oxford Dictionary— " " (1) One who or that which produces. ... In the Imperial Dictionary— " " To make, to bring into being or form 7? ...