Search - 江西农大 毛瑢

From 1961 to 1962 he taught at William & Mary University in Norfolk, Virginia. ... Unless you have some objection, we might prefer to complete our purchase by two distinct transactions, namely — pay $116,212.75 for the debt and pay the balance of the purchase price for the shares. ... The Appellant in its Notice of Appeal has now alleged that the portion of the loss attributable to the gaining or producing of income should be computed by first deducting the fixed expenses of the vessel and then applying to the variable expenses only (eg crew wages, fuel & galley) the ratio that personal use bore to total use of the vessel. ...

Traditionally, the residence of the debtor- the person paying the income — was of primary importance. ... These connecting factors — the residence of the debtor and the residence of the person the employment — point to the reserve. ...

The plaintiff alleges instead that there was a“ " verbal agreement" meaning, apparently, a common understanding which had never even been fully articulated orally between the parties. ...

I set out the statutory meaning of ‘ principal residence”: 54. (g) ‘principal residence” of a taxpayer for a taxation year means a housing unit. a leasehold interest therein. or a share of the capital stock of a co-operative housing corporation. owned, whether jointly with another person or otherwise. in the year by the taxpayer. if the housing was. or if the share was acquired for the sole purpose of acquiring the right to inhabit a housing unit owned by the corporation that was, (1) ordinarily inhabited in the year by the taxpayer, his spouse or former spouse, or a child of the taxpayer who, during the year, was wholly dependent upon him for support and was a person described in subparagraph 109(1)(d)(i), (ii) or (iii), or (ii) property in respect of which the taxpayer has made an election for the year in accordance with subsection 45(2). except that. subject to section 54.1. in no case shall any such housing unit. interest or share. as the case may be, be considered to be a taxpayer's principal residence for a year (iii) unless it has been designated by him in prescribed manner to be his principal residence for that year and no other property has been so designated by him for that year, or (iv) by virtue of subparagraph (ii). if by virtue of that subparagraph the property would, but for this subparagraph. have been his principal residence for four or more previous taxation years. and for the purposes of this paragraph the “principal residence” of a taxpayer for a taxation year shall be deemed to include. except where the property consists of a share of the capital stock of a co-operative housing corporation, the land subjacent to the housing unit and such portion of any immediately contiguous land as may reasonably be regarded as contributing to the taxpayers use and enjoyment of the housing unit as a residence. except that where the total area of the subjacent land and of that portion exceeds one acre. the excess shall be deemed not to have contributed to the individual's use and enjoyment of the housing unit as a residence unless the taxpayer establishes that it was necessary to such use and enjoyment; While the building was not quite a duplex in its construction, it served, to my mind, the same practical function. ...

Farming income is shown on a cash basis: Year Gross Farming Income Expenses Net Farm Loss 1979 $ 6,215.50 $16,687.09 $(10,474.59) 1980 11,212.42 20,908.19 (9,511.77) 1981 12,235.86 19,381.41 (7,145.55) 1982 3,870.01 54,217.48 (50,437.44) 1983 8,390.37 15,721.19 (7,330.82) As these numbers indicate, the farming business had been operating at a substantial loss for a period of at least ten years. ...

The expenditure manifestly constitutes an expense on capital account and the appeal must accordingly be dismissed. 1 Sun Newspapers Ltd et al v Fed Com of Taxation (1938), 61 CLR 337. 2 Learned counsel for the plaintiff referred to the following authorities: Schacter v MNR, [1962] CTC 437; 62 DTC 1271: Williams Brothers Canada Ltd v MNR, [1962] CTC 448; 62 DTC 1276; Southam Business Publications Ltd v MNR, [1966] CTC 265; 66 DTC 5215; Dominion Dairies Ltd v MNR, [1966] CTC 1; 66 DTC 5028; W E Butler et al v MNR, [1967] CTC 7; 67 DTC 5019; Montreal Trust Co v MNR, [1972] CTC 422; 72 DTC 6369; Cumberland Investments Ltd v The Queen, [1973] CTC 821; 74 DTC 6001; [1975] CTC 439; 75 DTC 5309; W J Burian v The Queen, [1976] CTC 725; 76 DTC 6444; The Queen v Baine, Johnstone & Co Ltd, [1977] CTC 556; 77 DTC 5394; The Queen v Sunstrum, [1978] CTC 421; 78 DTC 6301. ...

On September 7, 1973 Leduc and Parent procured a loan from Heller- Natofin Ltd of Montreal in the amount of $110,000 at 14 /z %, to be reimbursed within two years. ...

In Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Fleming & Co (Machinery), Ltd (1951), 33 TC 57 at 63 (CS), Lord Russell had said essentially the same thing in stating that if such payments were “no more than a surrogatum for the future profits surrendered” then they should be treated as income. ...

As pleaded, MDS says that these activities “constituted, in the relevant year, the manufacturing and processing of goods for sale and that its activities were performed in connection with the manufacturing or processing of goods for sale within the meaning of subsection 125.1(3) of the Income Tax Act, having regard to statutory, common law and other definitions and interpretations of the words ‘manufacturing and processing... of goods for sale.. ”’ As put by counsel for the plaintiff: Section 125.1 of the Income Tax Act permits a corporation to deduct from tax a certain percentage in respect of its ‘‘canadian manufacturing and processing profits’’. ...

The circumstances considered in The Toronto Hamilton & Buffalo Railway Company v MNR, [1974] CTC 2270; 74 DTC 1195, were quite different. ...