Search - 江西农大 毛瑢

When he left the firm in 1980 to establish his own real estate investment, management and development business he was the vice-president — Finance of the construction firm which, at the time, had a real estate portfolio consisting of some 400 houses and 250,000 sq. ft. of commercial property. ... It is the directors' wishes however, not to be in a decreased net land holding position in the downtown core, and accordingly we hereby offer the following two alternatives: Alternative #1 — We would entertain any proposal which the city may wish to offer in the form of a land exchange for our parcel. ... Alternative #2 — We would option the parcel to the city for a three month period for $10,000.00; such option could be extended for a further three months by paying a further $15,000.00. ...

Section 29 — Where Decision Not to be Restrained Notwithstanding sections 18 and 28, where provision is expressly made by an Act of the Parliament of Canada for an appeal as such to the Court, to the Supreme Court, to the Governor in Council or to the Treasury Board from a decision or order of a federal board, commission or other tribunal made by or in the course of proceedings before that board, commission or tribunal, that decision or order is not, to the extent that it may be so appealed, subject to review or to be restrained, prohibited, removed, set aside or otherwise dealt with, except to the extent and in the manner provided for in that Act. ... Hydro & Power Authority, [1981] 2 F.C. 636 at 684. Therefore, it follows, in so far as defendant is concerned, that the Federal Court-Trial Division could not have jurisdiction under section 18 (F.C.A.) to deal with an assessment because the Income Tax Act provides specifically for an appeal process from an assessment. ... The Queen & M.N.R., [1987] 1 F.C. 339; [1986] 2 C.T.C. 325). Motion to Strike (Rule 419(1) (a)) (1) The Court may at any stage of an action order any pleading or anything in any pleading to be struck out, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that (a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be Defendant's Submission The Crown submits that the statement of claim should be struck out essentially because what is asked of the Court goes contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act. ...

The Minister reassessed GCL on the basis that the building was “ rental property". ... The purpose of housing all Gulf Calgary employees in Gulf Canada Square was for purposes relating to efficiency — eliminating multiple communications systems, eliminating the time and expense in employees' travelling between locations, and reducing supplies and systems. ... In view of my disposition of this matter, it is not necessary for me to address the other question raised by counsel for the plaintiff — whether the payments made by GCRI to GCL were rent". ...

Harvey McGregor in his treatise McGregor on Damages, (1988) London: Sweet & Maxwell Ltd., 15th ed. at page 7 demonstrates the historical object of an award of damages: "The object of an award of damages is to give the plaintiff compensation for the damage, loss or injury he has suffered.” ... He there defined the measure of damages as " that sum of money which will put the party who has been injured or who has suffered, in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now getting his compensation or reparation.” ... It applied the test articulated by Lord Diplock in London & Thames Haven Oil Wharves, Ltd. v. ...

.: — Scannar Industries Inc. (Scannar) appeals the assessment for tax made by the Minister of National Revenue (the Minister) under the Scientific Research Tax Credit (SRTC) provisions of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, as amended (the Act). ... In advance of the execution of the previously described transactions, Proteus obtained an opinion from Coopers & Lybrand to the effect that Scannar’s activities would entitle it to claim a scientific research expenditure of $25 million for the purposes of section 37 and clause 194(2)(a)(ii)(A) of the Act. The opinion provided by Coopers & Lybrand was based, in part, upon a November 20, 1985, opinion of Fritzsch Pambianchi and Associates Inc. ...

., of a subsidiary—Where a Canadian corporation (in this subsection referred to as the subsidiary”) has been wound-up and not less than 90 per cent of the issued shares of each class of the capital stock of the subsidiary were, immediately before the winding-up, owned by another Canadian corporation (in this subsection referred to as the' parent”) and all the shares of the subsidiary that were not owned by the parent immediately before the winding-up were owned at the time by a person or persons with whom the parent was dealing at arm's length, for the purpose of computing the taxable income of the parent and the tax payable under Part IV by the parent for any taxation year commencing after the commencement of the winding-up, such portion of any non-capital loss, restricted farm loss or farm loss of the subsidiary as may reasonably be regarded as its loss from carrying on a particular business (in this subsection referred to as the "subsidiary's loss business") and any other portion of any non-capital loss of the subsidiary from any other source for any particular taxation year of the subsidiary (in this sub-section referred to as the "subsidiary's loss year"), to the extent that it (a) was not deducted in computing the taxable income of the subsidiary for any taxation year of the subsidiary, and (b) would have been deductible in computing the taxable income of the subsidiary for its taxation year commencing after the commencement of the winding- up, on the assumption that it had such a taxation year and that it had sufficient income for that year, shall, for the purposes of paragraphs 111(1)(a), (c) and (d), subsection 111(3) and Part IV, (c) in the case of such portion of any non-capital loss, restricted farm loss or farm loss of the subsidiary as may reasonably be regarded as its loss from carrying on the subsidiary’s loss business, be deemed, for the taxation year of the parent in which the subsidiary's loss year ended, to be a non-capital loss, restricted farm loss or farm loss, respectively, of the parent from carrying on the subsidiary’s loss business, that was not deductible by the parent in computing its taxable income for any taxation year that commenced before the commencement of the winding-up, and (d) in the case of any other portion of any non-capital loss of the subsidiary from any other source, be deemed, for the taxation year of the parent in which the subsidiary's loss year ended, to be a non-capital loss of the parent that was derived from the source from which the subsidiary derived the loss and that was not deductible by the parent in computing its taxable income for any taxation year that commenced before the commencement of the winding-up, except that (e) where, at any time, control of the parent or subsidiary has been acquired by a person or persons (each of whom is in this section referred to as the "purchaser") such portion of the subsidiary’s non-capital loss or farm loss for a taxation year ending before that time as may reasonably be regarded as its loss from carrying on a particular business is deductible by the parent for a particular taxation year ending after that time (i) only if throughout the particular year and after that time that business was Carried on by the subsidiary or parent for profit or with a reasonable expectation of profit, and (ii) only to the extent of the aggregate of (A) the parent's income for the particular year from that business and, where properties were sold, leased, rented or developed or services rendered in the course of carrying on that business before that time, from any other business substantially all the income of which was derived from the sale, leasing, rental or development, as the case may be, of similar properties or the rendering of similar services, and (B) the amount, if any, by which (I) the aggregate of the parent's taxable capital gains for the particular year from the disposition of property owned by the subsidiary at or before that time, other than property that was acquired from the purchaser or a person who did not deal at arm's length with the purchaser, exceeds (II) the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of the parent's allowable capital losses for the particular year from the disposition of property described in sub-clause (i) exceeds the aggregate of its allowable business investment losses for the particular year from the disposition of that property. 20(1) Notwithstanding paragraphs 18(1)(a), (b) and (h), in computing a taxpayer's income for a taxation year from a business or property, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as are wholly applicable to that source or such part of the following amounts as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto: (a) capital cost of property — 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.... 1100(15) Leasing properties — Notwithstanding subsection (1), in no case shall the aggregate of deductions, each of which is a deduction in respect of property of a prescribed class that is leasing property owned by a taxpayer, otherwise allowed to the taxpayer under subsection (1) in computing his income for a taxation year, exceed the amount, if any, by which (a) the aggregate of amounts each of which is (i) his income for the year from renting, leasing, or earning royalties from, a leasing property or a property that would be a leasing property but for subsection (18), (19) or (20) where such property is owned by him, computed without regard to paragraph 20(1)(a) of the Act, or (ii) the income of a partnership for the year from renting, leasing or earning royalties from, a leasing property or a property that would be a leasing property but for subsection (18), (19) or (20) where such property is owned by the partnership, to the extent of the taxpayer's share of such income, exceeds (b) the aggregate of amounts each of which is (i) his loss for the year from renting, leasing or earning royalties from, a property referred to in subparagraph (a)(i), computed without regard to paragraph 20(1)(a) of the Act, or (ii) the loss of a partnership for the year from renting, leasing or earning royalties from, a property referred to in subparagraph (a)(ii), to the extent of the taxpayer's share of such loss. ... The provisions are as follows: 88 (1.1) (c) in the case of such portion of any non-capital loss... of the subsidiary as may reasonably be regarded as its loss from carrying on the subsidiary's loss business, be deemed, for the taxation year of the parent... to be a non-capital loss... of the parent from carrying on the subsidiary’s loss business.... except that (e) where, at any time, control of the parent or subsidiary has been acquired by a person or persons.... such portion of the subsidiary's non-capital loss [...] for a taxation year ending before that time as may reasonably be regarded as its loss from carrying on a particular business is deductible by the parent for a particular taxation year ending after that time (i) only if throughout the particular year and after that time, that business was Carried on by the subsidiary or parent for profit or with a reasonable expectation of profit Paragraph 88(1.1)(e) clearly creates a restriction as to the deductibility of non-capital losses when a change of control of either the subsidiary or the parent has taken place. ...

The following summary, given at the end of list A, is worth noting here: Duties underpaid: $ 35,917.47 Tax underpaid: 1,997.91 Penalty: 226,096.67 TOTAL: $264,012.05 The summary given at the end of list B should also be reproduced here: Duties underpaid: $ 7,281.53 Penalty: 46,439.21 TOTAL: $53,720.74 Subsequently, after the discovery of certain bills of entry, list B was amended to give at the end the following amended summary: Duties underpaid: $ 3,728.53 Penalty: 23,560.47 TOTAL: $27,289.00 It may be noted at once that the total of the summary on list A and the summary on the amended list B corresponds exactly to the sum of $291,301.05 claimed as a “penalty” in the case at bar. ...

Deputy Minister of National Revenue (Customs & Excise) (1987), 13 C.E.R. 252 (Can. ... Deputy Minister of National Revenue (Customs & Excise) (1986), 12 C.E.R. 112 (Can. ... Rayner & Keeler Ltd. (No. 2) (1966), [1967] 1 A.C. 853 (U.K. H.L.):...(1) that the same question has been decided; (2) that the judicial decision which is said to create the estoppel was final; and, (3) that the parties to the judicial decision or their privies were the same persons as the parties to the proceedings in which the estoppel is raised or their privies.... ...

All these materials, including goods purchased from others, were “... integrated or otherwise consumed in the works referred to in the Contracts” (paragraph 4 of Exhibit 1). ... In the judgment of those learned judges, delivered by Smith J, it is Said (p 493): (€* it is not unusual for a manufacturer engaged in the production and manufacture of lumber for sale to engage at the same time in the business of a building contractor. ... Reliance was placed on the well-known line of authorities illustrated by The King v Carling Export Brewing & Malting Co Ltd, [1930] S.C.R. 361, per Duff, J at 366. ...

The following excerpts are from Article IX of the Constitution of the union: Article IX — Revenue and Funds Section 1. ... Additional dues for the old age pension and mortuary funds according to the following classifications: (a) Active members (including members working at the trade, seeking work at the trade, and employed in supervisory capacities related to work at the trade, such as superintendent or production manager but not limited to these titles) — Two and one-half per cent upon total earnings. section 2. ... Further provisions respecting the Old Age Pension and Mortuary Benefit are contained in Article XX of the Bylaws and include the following: Article XX — Old Age Pension and Mortuary Benefit Old Age Pension Section 1. ...