Search - 江西农大 毛瑢

They are as follows:— 1946—$ 2,840.54 1947— $ 3,143.02 1948— $12,870.30 1949— $ 9211.27. ... I then refer to the judgment of Lord Maugham in that case where at page 620 he said: ‘‘,.. ... Parliament has said that under certain circumstances certain things are deemed to be dividends and manifestly the Commissioner of Taxation had no power to declare otherwise or to settle the limit of taxation thereunder, other than according to the statute itself. ’ ’ In the same case I referred to Anderton and Halstead Limited v. ...

Of the 25 mortgages acquired by the appellants between January », 1955 and November 26, 1956, 17 were acquired prior to October 2, 1956 and eight subsequent to that d'ate. ... Section 139(1) (e) defines ‘‘business’’ as follows: 44 (e) ‘business’ includes a profession, calling, trade, manufacture or undertaking of any kind whatsoever and includes an adventure or concern in the nature of trade but does not include an office or employment. ’ ’ The distinction between profits that are subject to income tax and those that are not, together with the test to be applied in determining on which side of the dividing line they fall, was clearly stated in the classical case of Californian Copper Syndicate (Limited and Reduced) v. ... ’ ’ It is well settled that each case must be considered according to its facts. ...

Reed, [1937] 3 All E.R. 25, is a case where a testator gave all his property, both real and personal, to his wife, upon trust, ‘‘to retain the income thereof for her own use and benefit absolutely with power to convert to her own use from time to time such part or parts as she may think fit of the capital of my said real and personal estate or the investments of sale proceeds thereof. ’ ’ After the death of the wife the real and personal property, or so much thereof as had not been converted by the wife to her own use, was devised and bequeathed to trustees for the benefit of themselves and other nephews and nieces. ... M.N.R., [1953] 2 D.L.R. 58; [1953] C.T.C. 263, is a case where the Supreme Court of Canada had to deal with a clause in a will reading as follows: “ (f) To pay to my husband, the said Walter William Chipman, during the remainder of his lifetime, the net interest and revenues from the residue of my Estate and in addition thereto to pay to my said husband from time to time and at any time such portions of the capital of my Estate as he may wish or require and upon his simple demand, my said husband to be the sole judge as to the amount of capital to be withdrawn by him and the times and manner of withdrawing the same, and neither my said husband nor my Executors and Trustees shall be obliged to account further for any capital sums so paid to my said husband. ’ ’ The question of whether, under the terms of his wife’s will, Dr. ... Rinfret, C.J.C., at page 61 [[1953] C.T.C. 265], said: 4 ‘ The learned Judge of the Exchequer Court (Saint Pierre, J.)... held that in the present case Dr. ...

It follows, therefore, that if the appellant corporation had been the registered owner of the shares in the ‘‘underlying companies ’ ’, and as a consequence had received the dividends directly from them, it would have been entitled to deduct the amount of such dividends in computing its taxable income. ... Her right under the will is ‘property’ from which income is derived. ’ ’ And Lord Carson, in the same case, said at p. 870: ‘‘In my opinion upon the construction of the will of Alfred Pell once the residue had become specifically ascertained, the respondent’s wife was sole beneficial owner of the interest and dividends of all the securities, stocks and shares forming part of the trust fund therein settled and was entitled to receive and did receive such interest and dividends. ... It seems to me that counsel for the respondent, in submitting that the dividend must have been ‘‘received from’ ’ a corporation, has placed the emphasis in the wrong place. ...

., which as the name implies, was a company dealing in commercial paper, (2) Ferguson Truck & Equipment Co. ... On the asset side of the appellant’s balance sheets for the fiscal years ending November 1956, 1957 and 1958 under the heading 4 ‘Current Assets’’ the following item appears, ‘ Advance receivable—Ferguson Truck & Equipment Co. ... & R. Welding Ltd., Craig & Ralston Testing Co., Ltd., Vancouver Ditching Co., Ltd., and Craig & Ralston Construction Co., Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the Lions Equipment group’’ or ‘‘the borrowers’’) were engaged in negotiating a contract with Canadian Bechtel Ltd., as agents for West Coast Transmission Ltd., to test a West Coast natural gas pipeline for leaks. ...

In paragraph 20, it is mentioned that from May 31, 1952, until August of that year, ‘‘... the Vessel carried out a number of profitable voyage charters’’. ... Murray, a chartered accountant, connected with the Halifax firm of Nightingale, Hayman & Co., and James R. ... The Falkirk Iron Co., Ltd., [1933] 17 T.C. 625)” And at p. 545: ‘‘ These are the disbursements or expenses referred to in section 6(a) [— (section 12(1) (a) of 1948 S.C. c. 52),—] namely, those that are laid out or expended as part of the operations, transactions or services by which the taxpayer earned the income. ...

Racine Prix de vente $30,000.00 Coût 25,000.00 Profit réalisé à partager en 3 $ 5,000.00 Profit sur vente d’actions de Machineries Pro vinciales Inc. ... Racine Prix de vente $80,000.00 Coût_. 25,000.00 Profit réalisé à partager en 3 $ 5,000.00 Profit sur vente d’actions de Machineries Pro vinciales Inc. ...

The items put forward by the respondent as operating expenses of her business for the 1959 taxation year, not taken into account in making the assessment on that year, are as follows: Cheques Cash Total (1) Rent paid to Kamlo Hotel $ 475.40 $ 500.00 $ 975.40 (2) Rent for apartment at 1095 Bute St. 180.00 1,155.00 1,835.00 (3) Rent paid to Shirley Milne apt. occupied by her 2,100.00 2,100.00 (4) Rent paid for additional suites 1,170.00 1,170.00 (5) Legal fees 425.00 500.00 925.00 (6) Telephone inspection 1,000.00 1,000.00 (7) Payment for assistance to girls — 100.00 900.00 1,000.00 (8) Payments to casual employees 150.00 150.00 (9) Protection fees, — 9,000.00 9,000.00 (10) Liquor payment fees 2,600.00 2,600.00 Totals for 1959 taxation year $1,330.40 $18,925.00 $20,255.40 Items put forward by the respondent as operating expenses of her business during her 1960 taxation year which were not taken into account in making the assessment. for that year, are as follows: Cheques Cash Total (1) Rent paid to Shirley Milne for suite occupied by her for 11 months $ 1,925.00 $ 1,925.00 (2) Legal fees 1,000.00 1,000.00 (3) Telephone inspection 1,000.00 1,000.00 (4) Purchase of entire issue of Flash newspaper, 500.00 500.00 (5) Rent paid for additional suites 1,300.00 1,800.00 (6) Rent paid for suites at 1107 Howe St. ... The second item applicable to the 1959 and 1960 taxation vears is a claim, the rent of for ‘‘ at least’’ one other suite leased at all times from April 1959 at an ‘‘average’’ rental of $130 per month. ... W. deSantis — 360.00 (4) Legal fees —--— — 925.00 (5) Paid for assistance to girls 100.00 (6) Paid to casual employee — 150.00 Total_. $3,270.40 For the year 1960 the respondent is entitled to deduct as business expenses a total amount of $8,070 for the reasons outlined above, such total being made up as follows: (1) Rent paid for suite occupied by Shirley Milne $1,155.00 (2) Legal fees 1,000.00 (3) Commission on bail bonds 5,400.00 (4) Rent paid for Vincent Lodge 515.00 Total $8,070.00 It was contended on behalf of the respondent that since she had filed tax returns on a net worth basis, which had been accepted by the Minister for the 1954, 1955, 1956 and 1957 taxation years, that there was no justification for. the Minister in making arbitrary assessments under Section 46(6) of the Act, nor for imposing a penalty for evasion of tax under Section 56 of the Act. ...

Schedule III consists of a number of lists of articles or products grouped under headings such as “Building Materials’’, “Charitable, Health, ete.’’, ‘‘Coverings’’, “Diplomatic”, ‘* Engines’’, “Farm and Forest’’, “Foodstuffs” and “Machinery and Apparatus to be used in manufacture or production’’. ... Apart from the alleged estoppel it is, I think, clear that on the issue of whether in fact the humidifiers were ‘ partly manufactured goods’? ... There was accordingly in my opinion nothing to estop the Crown from denying in this action that the humidifiers in question were ‘ partly manufactured goods ’ ’ or from denying that the Minister had decided that the humidifiers were 1 ‘ partly manufactured goods’’. ...

General Reversionary & Investments Co. Lid., 7 T.C. 358; Shove v. ... Cravens Railway Carriage & Wagon Co. Lid., 32 T.C. 359; C.I.R. v. ... Richard Mills & Co., Ltd: (1927), 13 T.C. 216; Mallet v. Stavely Coal & Iron Co., Ltd., 13 T.C. 772; Van Den Berghs Ltd. v. ...