Search - 江西农大 毛瑢

He then referred to the decision of Farwell, LJ in the case of Marreco v Richardson, [1908] 2 KB 584 at 593 as follows: In the more recent case of Felix Hadley & Co v Hadley (1898), 2 Ch 680, Bryne, J held that a cheque or a bill of exchange given in respect of a pre-existing debt operated as a conditional payment thereof, and on the condition being performed by actual payment, the payment related back to the time when the cheque or bill was given. ...

He pointed out that he had two jobs, one with the Quebec Government, where he worked 32 /? ...

(See: In re Bankruptcy of G & G Equipment Co Ltd, 74 DTC 6407 at 6408, per Mr Justice Berger of the British Columbia Supreme Court.) ...

The position of the respondent was that: — During the relevant period, the appellant had some sewing work done for its operations by outside enterprises; —These “outside labour costs” were not normally performed by the appellant’s employees; —These “outside labour costs’’ were incurred because of a lack of capacity of the appellant’s manufacturing process. ...

Subsection 125(1) reads: (1) There may be deducted from the tax otherwise payable under this Part for a taxation year by a corporation that was, throughout the year, a Canadian- controlled private corporation, an amount equal to 25% of the lease of (a) the amount, if any, by which (i) the aggregate of all amounts each of which is the income of the corporation for the year from an active business carried on in Canada, exceeds (ii) the aggregate of all amounts each of which is a loss of the corporation for the year from an active business carried on in Canada, (b) the amount, if any, by which the corporation’s taxable income for the year exceeds the aggregage of (i) 10/4 of the aggregate of amounts deducted under subsection 126(1) from the tax for the year otherwise payable by it under this Part, and (ii) 2 times the aggregate of amounts deducted under subsection 126(2) from the tax for the year otherwise payable by it under this Part, (c) the corporation’s business limit for the year, and (d) the amount, if any, by which the corporation’s total business limit for the year exceeds its cumulative deduction account at the end of the immediately preceding taxation year, except that in applying this section for a taxation year after the 1972 taxation year, the reference in this subsection to “25%” shall be read as a reference to “24%” for the 1973 taxation year, “23%” for the 1974 taxation year, “22%” for the 1975 taxation year, and “21 %” for the 1976 and subsequent taxation years. ...

The appellant thereafter had no further obligation to pay his wife’s taxes. 3.08 In calculating his income for 1975 the appellant claimed as a deduction the sum of $29,999 paid, in the appellant’s submission, as alimony in accordance with the two aforementioned decrees. 3.09 By a notice or re-assessment, dated October 12, 1977, the respondent included in calculating the appellant’s income as taxable income a part of the amount claimed as a deduction, namely the sum of $12,699. 3.10 This amount of $12,699 represents, in the appellant’s submission, the total sum spent by the latter in 1975 to pay the taxes of Dame Gloria Fortin relating to alimony, and this amount may be broken down for greater precision as follows: 1974 federal tax $6,282 1974 provincial tax $5,850 the appellant’s error in calculating alimony $ 567 4. ...

Background In 1965, the appellant purchased a controlling interest in Grant Johnston & Co Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Grant” or “the Company”), a firm engaged in the stock brokerage business. ...

There was no dispute concerning the payments which were made to these foreign companies: 1972 $44,500 1973 $ 5,500 1974 $46,500 1975 $17,500 No evidence was filed by the parties, but copies of the contracts in question were submitted to the Board. ...

L & F Holdings Ltd v MNR, [1975] CTC 2192; 75 DTC 150; 9. Marlee Investments Ltd v MNR, [1975] CTC 2189; 75 DTC 153; 10. ...

In the instant appeal the Court ordered the transfer and the conveyance of all the taxpayer’s interest in the matrimonial home to his estranged wife and further ordered that the taxpayer make all the mortgage payments until the mortgage was completely retired and discharged (Exhibit A-1, para 3 & 4). ...