Search - 江西农大 毛瑢

.: — These reasons arise out of the Defendants’ motion to strike out the Statement of Claim under Rule 419(l)(a), (c) and (f), that it discloses no reasonable cause of action, that it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, and that it is an abuse of the process of the Court. ... Further, it does not put a limit on the scope of Parliament’s right of taxation, merely pointing out that Parliament has the right to raise money by.. any mode or system of taxation... ”. ... Justice La Forest also writing concurring reasons) referred to the GST Act and its purpose to raise revenue for the Federal Government and then remarked “... it would be hard to dispute that the Act is properly characterized as being in relation to a mode or system of taxation in the meaning of section 91(3) of the Constitution Act, 1867. ...

<.? é According to appellant’s contention, Mr Frantz was merely permitted to work for this syndicate and he was not doing his prospecting and exploration in his capacity as an employee of KMG since otherwise the claims would have been staked for that company or its associated companies and not for the benefit of the syndicate. ... Having found nothing to negative his previously formed opinion of the possibilities, he then arranged with Geophysical Engineering & Surveys Limited to stake the specific areas in Fabre Township that he designated to them. ... In his judgment he concluded that “the first arrangement as a result of which the syndicate acquired the claims was between the two groups and that Mr Frantz had no part in this other than as an employee of companies forming part of one of the groups”, while with respect to the staking of the claims, “that was an arrangement between the syndicate and Geophysical Engineering & Surveys Limited, the staking company”. ...

This amount was consequent upon the sale of two properties, the first property, which may be referred to conveniently as the Edmonton Property, was sold on April 30, 1969, from which a gain of $23,000 was realized by the defendant, and the second sale was that of the 6th St Property on October 14, 1969, on which sale a net gain of $38,272.75 was realized by the defendant. 26 The Edmonton Property, consisting of some 2.06 acres, was acquired by Hilson Limited in 1958 at a cost of $10,300 upon which Hilson contracted with the construction company in the complex to erect a building on a cost plus basis in the amount of $94,812.81, designed for the needs of Precision Machine & Equipment Limited, also a member of the complex and also wholly-owned by Standard Holdings, the purpose of which company was to acquire and supply specialized machinery and equipment for the construction part of the complex. 27 On April 15, 1958, Hilson Limited, which I consider as being the defendant under its name before amalgamation, leased the property to Precision Machine & Equipment Limited for a term of 20 years at an annual rental of $10,294.20. On a total cost to Hilson of $105,112.81 I compute the annual return to Hilson on its expenditure to have been approximately 10% per annum, which Hilson considered to be an economically feasible return, contemplated to be returnable over a period of 20 years, which would have been a return of 200%. 28 After three years, however, because of changes in techniques in the construction industry and other exigencies, the need for the specialized equipment which Precision Machine & Equipment Limited was incorporated to supply to the complex, of which it was part, and to other customers, disappeared with the result that the company became insolvent. ... In any event the ruse was unsuccessful because Alberta Mack Truck was quick to observe the omission and its solicitors forwarded an option to purchase agreement in the terms that had been negotiated which document Hilson had no choice but to execute and did so on October 26, 1959. 42 By its terms the option to purchase was exercisable by Alberta Mack Truck during a ten-year period from the date of the option, October 26, 1959, at a purchase price of $185,000 if exercised during the first year, the purchase price to be reduced by $5,000 per year if the option was exercised in any subsequent year. 43 On October 14, 1969, the option was exercised by Western Mack Truck & Equipment Limited, the assignee of Alberta Mack Truck, and the sale effected at the price of $140,000 in accordance with the terms of the option. ...

(emphasis added) And the 1978 Combined Federal and Provincial Income Tax Return, guide and tables for residents of Canada — Revenue Canada Taxation — (Ex 26) in step 2, headed “Identifying yourself’, reads in part: Please complete all the boxes in the identification area of your return that apply to you. ...

In any event, the Deputy Attorney General of Canada submits that the expenses incurred by the Plaintiff by Cross Appeal in travelling between his home and the place of work to which he “usually reported for work” or his “home base” — which in this case is Metropolitan Toronto — are commuting expenses and thus not deductible within the meaning of Paragraph 8(1)(h) and Subsection 8(2) of the Act. ...

Did anyone voting on the resolution that granted you options, himself grant options at the same meeting of, by resolution immediately before or immediately after the resolution giving you — A. ... The options being virtually his only real form of remuneration from these companies — none of them granting dividends during the years in question — an increase in the value of the shares acquired under option surely must have been anticipated. ...

The same principle of interdependence between what might otherwise be considered passive income and active business operations was recognized by the Court of Appeal in the case of The Queen v Marsh & McLennan Ltd, [1983] CTC 231; 83 DTC 5180 where we find the following statement at 242 [5189]: To use the words employed by Rowlatt J in Scales v George Thompson and Company Limited, [1927] 13 TC 83, on the facts of this case there was between the broker’s business and the investments an inter-connection, an interlacing, an interdependence, a unity embracing the investments and the business. ... At page 6186 of the report de Grandpré J, speaking for the Court, had this to say: “... ... (See also The Queen v Terra Mining & Exploration Limited (NPL), [1984] CTC 176; 84 DTC 6185 and MNR v Mid-West Abrasive Company of Canada Limited, [1973] CTC 548; 73 DTC 5429.) ...

., [1966] 3 All E.R. 105, 43 T.C. 591 and FA & AB Ltd. v. Lupton (Inspector of Taxes), [1972] A.C. 634, [1971] 3 All E.R. 948. ... Notwithstanding [that] the definition of “ business” in the Act includes an "adventure or concern in the nature of trade”, a person who participates in an adventure or concern in the nature of trade is not carrying on a business or more precisely, a trade. An adventure... is an isolated happening I subscribe to this view, and also share the judge’s observation at page 2187 (D.T.C. 1047) that: [T]he proposition of law laid down in Finsbury Securities Ltd. and FA & AB Ltd.... is not authority for the proposition that property acquired for tax avoidance purposes cannot be the subject of an adventure or concern in the nature of trade. ...

., un immeuble désigné comme suit: A — LA PARTIE EXCLUSIVE connue et désignée comme étant la subdivision QUARANTE du lot originaire SIX CENT CINQUANTE-HUIT (658-40) du cadastre officiel pour la paroisse de Ste-Anne, division d'enregistrement de Montmorency. B — LA QUOTE-PART des droits indivis dans les parties communes afférantes à la partie exclusive désignée au paragraphe “K” ci-dessus... ... Déductions admises lors du calcul des revenus d’une entreprise ou d’un bien. (1) Nonobstant les dispositions des alinéas 18(1)(a), (b) et (h), lors du calcul du revenu tiré par un contribuable d’une entreprise ou d’un bien pour une année d’imposition, peuvent être déduites celles des sommes suivantes qui se rapportent entièrement à cette source de revenus ou la partie des sommes suivantes qui peut raisonnablement être considérée comme s’y rapportant: (a) Coût en capital des biens. — la partie, si partie il y a, du coût en capital des biens supporté par le contribuable ou le montant, si montant, il y a, du coût en capital des biens, supporté par le contribuable, que le règlement autorise 221. ...

(h) Under the terms of the settlement Olympia & York Developments Limited, which had by this time purchased the sublease of the lands and premises was authorized by the plaintiff to demolish the buildings. (i) The plaintiff was provided with the permanent covenant of Olympia & York Developments Limited guaranteeing the terms of the head lease. (j) During the year 1975, the buildings were demolished at the expense of Olympia & York Developments Limited. ...