Search - 江西农大 毛瑢

The six-year limitation period was made “ applicable to the 1983 and subsequent taxation years" (S.C. 1984, c. 45, subsection 59(5)). ... Counsel for the defendant does not object to the Court's resort to the explanatory notes published and referred to in parliamentary debate by the then Minister, so long as the explanatory notes are not taken to displace the plain meaning of the words in subsection 84(6) " applicable after April 19, 1983”. ... It is urged that the words used with reference to that amended subsection, " applicable after April 19, 1983”, are clear, that there is therefore no necessity to look beyond them for a purpose which would in any way qualify the intention of Parliament revealed by those words. ...

Dec 23/80 SE16-16-27W2 $ 95,000.00 2. Dec 23/80 SW 16-16-27W2 95,000.00 3. ... Jun 29/79 SE 16-16-27W2 $ 62,500.00 7. Jun 29/79 SW 16-16-27W2 62,500.00 8. ... Grant Kyllo, [1976] C.T.C. 409; 76 D.T.C. 6235. [. J I do not consider these purchases and sale of the various hotels, albeit in a relatively short period of time, as being motivated with the view of speculation and turning the acquisition of the hotels to account for profit. [...] ...

The financial statements of Wenonah as at February 12th, 1969 prepared by Messrs Price, Waterhouse & Co, Chartered Accountants disclosed that after paying the liabilities of Wenonah (including a debt of $367,858.10 owing to the deceased) there were available for distribution to the shareholders on the dissolution of Wenonah assets having a market value of $117,977.71 (which calculation is based on the valuation of a residential property owned by Wenonah at $102,000.00 being the appraised value of such property in 1967 when Wenonah acquired the said property), of which pursuant to the Letters Patent of Wenonah the estate of the Deceased as the beneficial owner of 2,000 Class B shares was entitled to received $2,000.00 and the holders of the Class A shares were entitled to receive the balance of $115,977.71. 18. ... Duke of Westminster v CIR, [1936] AC 1 per Lord Tomlin at page 19; Pioneer Laundry & Dry Cleaners Ltd v MNR, 1 DTC 499 per Davis J at page 7; upheld by 1 DTC 499-69 (JCPC); Shulman v MNR, 61 DTC 1213. 6. ... See re the explication of this fiduciary duty by the California Supreme Court by its decision in Jones v H F Ahmanson & Company (1969), 81 Cal Rptr 529; 460 P 2d 464, noted, 70 Colum L Rev 1079 (1970). ...

By memorandum of agreement (hereinafter called “said agreement”) entered into as of August 31,1969 the Plaintiff agreed, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement, to sell, transfer and convey The Place Cremazie Complex to First General Real Estate & Resources Trust, a Massachusetts Trust organized pursuant to a declaration of trust dated July 31, 1962 as amended and reconstituted on August 9, 1962 and as further amended on September 30, 1968 and April 28, 1969 (hereinafter called “First General”). 5. ... I have considered without applying them the following cases: Cornwall v Henson, [1899] 2 Ch 710; Trinidad Lake Asphalt Operating Company, Limited v Commissioners of Income Tax for Trinidad and Tobago, [1945] H of L AC 1; Buchanan v Oliver Plumbing & Heating Ltd, [1959] OR 238, together with the passages in 19 CED, c IX and Halsbury’s, Third Edition, Volume 34 referred to by counsel. ... When dealing with these concepts, Marler in his treatise on The Law of Real Property, supra, states: Ownership is perhaps better defined as the right in virtue of which a thing is subject in an absolute and exclusive manner to the will and power of a person: Aubry & Rau, II, No 190; Planiol, I, No 1027. ...

Exhibit P-2 (1 & 2) shows the acreage of the land purchased, from whom purchased and when the purchase was made. According to this document P-2 (1 & 2) the witness purchased a total of 648 acres of land in June 1976, 1931 acres in January 1977 and 1440 acres in June of 1977 for a total of 4019 (an error appears on Exhibit P-2 (1) in that the total acreage shown purchased in June 1976 and January 1977 is 2580 acres when it should be 2579 acres). ... The proof is clear that the first lands purchased by Kenneth Buchanan, the Flatt & Skanderberg lands, were purchased by a chance reading of an advertisement in a small local newspaper. ...

A period of 2 / years elapsed before the new assessment of January 14, 1960 and it was in this assessment that a credit was shown of: $192,233.93 for amounts paid on account. ... The subsequent delays of 4 / years and 5 years respectively following the notice of appeal and notice of dissatisfaction before the Minister made his decision in each case are even harder to justify, so that it would appear that plaintiff has a very real grievance with respect to interest charges which might justify the application by the Court of section 45 if, in fact, plaintiff can establish that it suffered prejudice by the accumulation of interest charges resulting from these excessive delays. ... April 11, 1960 Appeal by estate. — May 8, 1961 Further payment by estate of $500. ...

Summary judgment — failure to disclose a serious issue to go to trial. ... Summary judgment — any cause of action is statute barred. Counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent's claim is statute barred by section 7 of the P.A.P.A. and/or by subsection 112 (1) of the Excise Tax Act. ... Clarke Drummie & Co., file no. 57/CA/92, September 23, 1992, adopted Mr. ...

", must be read as meaning that such bands are not to be taxed as taxpayers. ... Alternatively, it is argued that the claim is governed by paragraph 45(1)(b) of the Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 240 (made applicable by operation of section 38 of the Federal Court Act). [6] Paragraph 45(1)(b) provides that when an action is "upon a bond or other speciality... ” a limitation period of 20 years applies. ... Smith & Co. v. The Queen (1981), 20 C.P.C. 126 at 135 citing Cook v. ...

Counsel for the plaintiff argues that: (1) the plaintiff had a right to the refund accrued or accruing before March 4, 1986, the date on which the repealing legislation received royal assent; (2) repealing legislation does not take away accrued or accruing rights unless it expressly so provides — see paragraph 43(c) of the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. ... The facts of the Ho Po Sang case involve a defendant who had obtained a Crown lease of certain property and at the same time, had signed a memorandum of agreement with the appropriate government official (the Director of Public Works) concerning the terms of that lease — the defendant was to demolish the buildings on the property and develop it. ... Lord Bishop of Oxford, 5 A.C. 214, is applicable, and that the word "may" as it is used in the subsection permits the minister to determine whether the facts of a case bring it within one or other of the several specific grounds for refund or deduction: and if such is found to be the case, then a clear and imperative duty arises — in this case to refund the amount paid in error. ...

In A & E Plastik Pak Co, Inc v Monsanto Company (1968), 396 F (2d) 710, Merrill, Cir J says at page 714: [5] The agreement between Monsanto and A & E, on its face, appears to be a license of technology or “know-how,”’ to which restraints of competition are attached as conditions of the license. Thus, on its face, it does not appear to be an agreement between competitors not to compete, for absent the licensed know-how, A & E is in no position to compete. 5. ... Creed & Bangs, Know-How Licensing and Capital Gains, Patent, Trade-Mark and Copyright J of Research and Education 93 (1960). ...