Search - 江西农大 毛瑢

This refers to the 1st numbered paragraph of the offer in Exhibit A-1. 3.06 The offer (Exhibit A-1) refers, in the fourth numbered paragraph, to financial statements of the company prepared as at December 31,1974 and certified by the accounting firm Mallette & Cie. ... The evidence was permitted under the reserve of the later decision concerning the objection. 3.12 On one hand the appellant said that the amount of $197,735 was the result of the verbal agreement preceding the written agreement $175,000, plus half of the working capital on December 31, 1974, $22,735 ($45,470 + 2). ... The balance due less $1,780 was paid on October 17, 1975 to the company by Orlando. 3.15 Both the appellant and Orlando had received an amount of $1,780 in January 1975. 3.16 In filing his 1974 income tax return, the appellant calculated his capital gain on the sale of the shares on the basis of a total consideration of $191,610 ($175,000 + $16,610) rather than the stipulated consideration of $175,000. ...

(ci-après dénommé LE DISTRIBUTEUR) D’UNE PART LA SOCIETE RADIO-CANADA (ci-après dénommée LA SOCIETE) D’AUTRE PART En considération des engagements réciproques contenus dans le present contrat, le Distributeur et la Société conviennent de ce qui suit: 1 Le Distributeur accorde à la Société le droit de diffuser les productions télévisuelles (ci-après appelées “productions”) énumérées au tableau annexé au présent contrat et en faisant partie intégrante, aux endroits, pour la durée et aux conditions stipulées au dit tableau ou dans les présentes. 2° a) Le Distributeur déclare et garantit que les droits de diffusion au Canada de tout ou partie des compositions musicales contenues dans les productions sont: (i) gérés par le Broadcast Music Incorporated, la Composers, Authors & Publishers Association of Canada, I’American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers ou par leurs filiales; ou (ii) du domaine public, ou (iii) gérés par le Distributeur lui-meme. b) Le Distributeur s’engage à indemniser la Société et la tenir quitte et indemne de tous dommages-intérêts ou déboursés que lui occasionnerait la diffusion de toute musique contenue dans les productions dont les droits ne sont ni du domaine public ni gérés par l’une des associations nommées à l’alinéa a) (i) ci-dessus. ...

This balance sheet reads as follows: ASSETS Cash $ 946.22 Loan receivable 20.00 Deposit 1,000,00 Building $46,800.00 Plus improvements 5,553.78 52,353.78 Land 5,200.00 TOTAL ASSETS $59,520,00 LIABILITIES Bank loan $ 3,000 Loan to a director 21,500 Mortgage payable 35,000 TOTAL LIABILITIES $59,500 Shareholders’ equity Capital—Authorized 4,000 non-cumulative redeemable preferred 3% par value shares, $10 each 100 ordinary shares, no par value Issued and paid-up: 4 ordinary shares 20 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDER’S EQUITY $59,520 3.07 According to the evidence presented, the three appellant shareholders loaned the appellant corporation the $17,000 paid on account when the land was purchased, and also $4,500 later on for various current expenses. ... Elbros Corporation v The Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal & The Montreal Catholic School Commission (unreported); 9. ... Javelin Foundries & Machine Works Limited v MNP, [1967] Tax ABC 572; 67 DTC 392; 11. ...

That amount was calculated according to paragraphs 6(1)(e) and 6(2)(a) of the new Act: 12% of $4,054.96 = $486. 3.16. ... In Pryce v Monmouthshire Canal & Rail Cos, 4 AC 197 at p 203, the Court merely stated that “... the taxpayer had a right to stand upon a literal construction of the words used, whatever might be the consequence.” ... In R v BC Fir & Cedar, [1932] AC 441. the Privy Council said that the word “includes” in a section incorporates not only whatever the section declares, but also what the word signifies according to its natural meaning. ...

If the appellant is to have the benefit of Regulation 1100(1) — giving him a 60% capital cost allowance on the film — it must be a motion picture film and I think that those words are quite clear that a motion picture film is something that is ready to be shown to the public. ...

. — For reasons of economic feasibility, it was decided necessary and in the best interests of Lincoln to construct a building which was more than adequate for the immediate needs of Lincoln. Due to the high cost of land, it was necessary to construct a five-floor building for the project to be viable economically. — Lincoln had expanded rapidly since its incorporation and it considered that a prestigious head office building in a prime location would result in increased growth. — At the time of approval of the construction drawings and at all times during its 1973 and 1974 taxation years, Lincoln expected that its rapid growth would soon require it to occupy the entire building for the purposes of its own head office. ... To summarize up to this point, the Board would say: — During at least the period of planning and early construction, consideration that the building would be the location of the head office was not a dominant factor. ...

In Swiss Bank Corporation et al v Minister of National Revenue, 71 DTC 5235, Thurlow, J, as he then was, said at page 5241: To this I would add that where several parties — whether natural persons or corporations or a combination of the two — act in concert, and in the same interest, to direct or dictate the conduct of another, in my opinion the ‘mind’ that directs may be that of the combination as a whole acting in concert or that of any one of them in carrying out particular parts or functions of what the common object involves. ...

He sold his home before he left the Montreal area and purchased another home at Mountain, Ontario — a community some 40 miles south of Ottawa. ... Counsel stressed that there was no agreement between the parties as to the terms of the employment — the air traffic controllers got what the proposal Said. ... He just had to justify the fact that the house he owned in Pierrefonds cost considerably less than a similar house would cost in Ottawa — there was no accountability. ...

As early as December 9, 1977, Fazio had written the Department of Planning re: “Lauzon Road — Little River Road Planning Area, Borrelli/Ramos Construction Purchase”. ... In Grossman (supra) at 2145 and 152 respectively, it is stated: Therefore, at the risk of certain selective perception, one may elucidate as follows from the above summary of cases (particularly that of Hiwako, [1978] CTC 378; 78 DTC 6281): (1) where there was “an expectation on the part of the purchaser, at the time of purchase, that... it could be sold at a profit and that such expectation... induced him to make the purchase”; or (2) “If property is acquired when there is no business... ”; or (3) “one possibility in the mind of the purchaser is to use the property as the Capital asset of a proposed business”; or (4)... the purchaser has not considered how he will use it (the property)” (italics mine). ... I fail to see how any of the evidence in this case can be interpreted as meeting any such criteria in showing investment characteristics, let alone one of sufficient quantity or quality to warrant rejection of the basic assumption made by the Minister — that the transaction in question was of a trading nature, and consisted of the acquisition and sale of an inventory item. ...

The Duke of Westminster’s case was about a simple transaction entered into between two real persons each with a mind of his own, the Duke and his gardener — even though in the nineteen-thirties and at a time of high unemployment there might be reason to expect that the mind of the gardener would manifest some degree of subservience to that of the Duke. ... The principle which the Respondent’s counsel suggested should be adopted from the Leon case is one which the same Court, differently constituted, suggested.. should perhaps be confined to the facts of that case.” [2] * The present case is rather different. ... Subsection 5(1) of the Income Tax Act provides, “... a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from... employment is the salary... received by him in the year.” the appellant did not receive any salary from Global after November 30, 1975, and it was not directly contended either that he made Reasoned his agent to receive payments from Global or that the payments were made by Global to Reasoned pursuant to any direction given by the appellant. 2 Per Urie, J, in Massey-Ferguson Limited v The Queen, [1977] CTC 6; 77 DTC 5013. ...