Search - 江西农大 毛瑢

I would distinguish the West Coast Parts case for at least two of the reasons for which Heald J. distinguished it from the situation before him in Lunham & Moore Ltd. v. ...

The amount received from the sales of Henning products in 1971 and following were as follows: 10 months ending December 31 1971 $ 59,000 1972 37,000 1973 45,000 1974 70,000 1975 105,000 1976 188,000 1977 235,000 1978 357,000 1979 433,000 and for the first 8 months of 1980 the sum of $355,000 The profits made from such business for the years following the sale were as follows: 1972 $15,000 1973 14,000 1974 15,000 1975 4,000 1976 9,000 1977 a loss of $3,900 1978 a profit of $30,000 1979 a profit of $51,000 and up to the present time in 1980 the sum of $80,000 In Her Majesty the Queen v National Systems of Baking of Alberta Limited, [1978] CTC 30; 78 DTC 6018, at 38 [6024], Mahoney, J referring to hindsights values stated: I expressly rejected the validity of hindsight as probative of fair market value at a given date and took nothing that occurred after valuation day into account. ...

As the members of the Privy Council stated in BP Australia Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia, [1966] AC 224:at 252, in citing with approval Lord Reid’s judgment in Hinto v Maden & Ireland Ltd, [1959] 1 WLR 875:... that... expenses which relate to the earnings of the year are revenue outgoings but that expenses which produce assets which survive beyond the year are capital expenses because the assets must: show in the balance sheet as capital assets. ...

., James Richardson & Sons, Ltd. v. M.N.R. et al., [1984] 1 S.C.R. 614, [1984] C.T.C. 345, 84 D.T.C. 6325, at 621; Côté, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2nd ed., 1991) at page 261. ...

II rejette maintenant l’allégation originale de bris de contrat donnant lieu à des dommages. ll se réfère aux décisions suivantes: H A Roberts Ltd v MNR, [1969] CTC 369; 69 DTC 5249; Barr, Crombie & Co Ltd v CIR, 26 TC 406; Courrier M H Inc v La Reine, [1976] CTC 567; 76 DTC 6331; Paul Girouard v La Reine, [1980] CTC 284; 80 DTC 6151. ...

In my judgment the familiar rule that where there are general words following particular and specific words all of one genus, the general words are presumed to be restricted to the same genus as the particular words, — applies to the words “grant, subsidy or other assistance” as used in section 20(6)(h) of the Income Tax Act. ...

During the years 1968 to 1971, the defendant caused Midtown to pay him the following amounts: 1968 $ 1,600.00 1969 10,169.98 1970 1,151.43 1971 180.59 Such amounts were earned in the business as a result of Woods’ sales ability and efforts. ...

The amounts, for the taxation years in issue, are: 1981: $122,055.92 1982: $198,151.00 1983: $ 34,421.00 1984: $206,666.66 The payments were paid either as a fixed sum or on a square footage basis. ...

Counsel for the appellant contends it is not sufficient to look at the mere receipt or description of the money, and from that to say it was income of the taxpayer “... from sources other than logging operations...” and therefore must be deducted from its total income. ...

These amendments are contained in subsections 225.1(1), (2) and (3) of the Income Tax Act: 225.1(1) Where a taxpayer is liable for the payment of an amount assessed under this Act (in this subsection referred to as the "unpaid amount”), other than an amount payable under subsection 227(9), the Minister shall not, for the purpose of collecting the unpaid amount, (a) commence legal proceedings in a court, (b) certify the unpaid amount under subsection 223(1), (c) require a person to make a payment under subsection 224(1), (d) require an institution or person to make a payment under subsection 224(1.1), (e) require the retention of the unpaid amount by way of deduction or set-off under section 224.1, (f) require a person to turn over moneys under subsection 224.3(1), or (g) give a notice, issue a certificate or make a direction under subsection 225(1) before the day that is 90 days after the day of mailing of the notice of assessment. (2) Where a taxpayer has served a notice of objection under this Act to an assessment of an amount payable under this Act, other than an amount payable under subsection 227(9), the Minister shall not, for the purpose of collecting the amount in controversy, take any of the actions described in paragraphs (1)(a) to (g) before the day that is 90 days after the day on which notice is mailed to the taxpayer that the Minister has confirmed or varied the assessment. (3) Where a taxpayer has appealed from an assessment of an amount payable under this Act, other than an amount payable under subsection 227(9), to the Tax Court of Canada or to the Federal Court—Trial Division (otherwise than pursuant to subsection 172(1)), the Minister shall not, for the purpose of collecting the amount in controversy, take any of the actions described in paragraphs (1)(a) to (g), (a) where the appeal is to the Tax Court of Canada, before the day of mailing of a copy of the decision of the Court to the taxpayer; and (b) where the appeal is to the Federal Court — Trial Division, before the day on which the judgment of the Court is pronounced or the day on which the taxpayer discontinues the appeal, whichever is the earlier. ...