Search - 江西农大 毛瑢

The carrier was the Norfolk and Western Railway Company which contacted Donna MacCullouch, Office Manager in Welland of Livingston International (a subagent for the plaintiff's customs broker, the latter being Hemisphere Freight & Brokerage Services Inc. of Toronto). ...

Thomson & Associates Ltd. of Victoria, B.C., to make a survey of pulp and newsprint pricing discounts and commissions in that industry. ...

.), enunciated the test to be met with respect to the previous subsection 225.2(1): ”... the issue is not whether the collection per se is in jeopardy but rather whether the actual jeopardy arises from the likely delay in the collection thereof. ...

The evaluation formula was set out in Schedule “A” of the defence as follows: Corporation's Equity in the residence $316,135.79 Return on investment of $316,135.79 at 9% $28,452.00 Mortgage interest, municipal taxes and insurance paid by the corporation 8,799.00 Gross Benefit to Plaintiff and wife received from corporation 37,251.00 Less: Amount of benefit attributable to Plaintiff’s wife 18,625.00 Amount of benefit attributable to Plaintiff 18,625.00 Less: Rent and expenses paid by Plaintiff 12,100.00 Net amount of benefit to the Plaintiff $ 6,526.00 The final assumption was that the corporation did not build the residence for the purpose of producing or gaining income from a business or property. ...

In this case the damages were calculated by reference to two per cent of the purchase price of the Levy shares — what Manley would have been paid if the rest of the Levy group had been bound by the transaction between the plaintiff and Ben Levy. ...

Its shares were held equally by two groups — that of Mr Max Tanenbaum and that of Mr William McLachlan. 2. ...

Attached hereto and marked exhibit “C” to this my affidavit are true copies of pgs. 48 & 49 of the examination. 4. ...

(my emphasis) Facts On February 22, 1990, the Secretary of the Machinery & Equipment Advisory Board (MEAB) signed an Application for Duty Remission under the Machinery Program (Application #2037644), submitted by W.C.I. ...

Beaulac:-Points #1, #2 & #4- These comments all deal with taxation year prior to 1994. ...

If this section were to apply to the present appellant, as suggested by the respondent, she would be paying a tax of close to $70,000 (or $69,860.03) as hereinafter set down instead of an amount of $55,057.12 according to the appellant or $51,067.27 if she was living in the Province of Ontario, as hereunder set down: Federal tax of $16,280.69 Provincial tax of $ 4,225.78 US tax of $30,560.80 $51,067.27 According to the calculations of the appellant, the latter should pay a tax of $55,057.12 on a taxable income of $97,487.47: Federal tax Satin Nil Provincial tax ches cha $24,497.32 US tax $30,560.80 $55,057.12 She would, according to the respondent, on a taxable income of $97,487.47 pay a tax of $69,860.03: Federal tax $14,801.91 Provincial tax $24,497.32 US tax $30,560.80 $69,860.03 Counsel for the appellant says that the latter is not trying to avoid or lessen her tax liabilities on the income she has received. ...