Search - 江西农大 毛瑢

Utting & Co., Ltd., v. Hughes (H.M. Inspector of Taxes) (1938), 23 T.C. 174; Imperial Tobacco Co. ... Ogg (Surveyor Taxes) (1918), 7 T.C. 125; The Gloucester Railway Carriage & Wagon Co. ... Of the meaning of ‘‘annual profit or gain ’ ’:— Ryall (Inspector of taxes) v. ...

The inclusion of this last proviso in the definition of the expression * ‘duty paid value’’ is, in my opinion, of great consequence in the present case. ... & G., 870, at 879; The Queen v. Barclay (1881) 8 Q.B.D., 306, at 312; Partington v. ... & I. App., 100, at 122; Cox v. Rabbits (1878) 3 App. Cas. 473, at 478; Attorney-General v. ...

The amounts of the several items of expense just mentioned are not in dispute. (1) Premium paid upon retirement of the issue of old bonds $1,104,600.00 (2) Exchange premium paid upon retirement of the issue of old bonds 676,726.00 (3) Expenses in connection with the retirement of the issue of old bonds 25,793.42 (4) Discount on the issue of new bonds: $ 5,000,000 par value at 114 per cent $ 75,000 $10,000,000 " " 4 11 " 400,000 475,000.00 Total $2,282,079.42 I perhaps should here add by way of explanation that there was a provision in the trust deed securing the old bond issue which required the payment of a premium of 4% in the event of redemption before maturity. ... I might point out here that in Canada, under s. 5 (&) of the Act, such reasonable rate of interest on borrowed capital used in the business to earn the income as the Minister in his discretion may allow is permissible as a deduction, and the appellant, in the period in question was allowed a deduction on this account. ... It therefore seems to me to be difficult to say otherwise than that all expenses in question here constituted an outlay on account of capital, within the meaning of the statute, even though on equitable grounds the appellant’s view seems attractive and in many ways quite just, In the case of Archibald Thomson, Black & Co. v. ...

—that is, that this was a slump transaction. ’ ’ In Frankel Corpn. Ltd. v. ... Fisher or from MacCarthy & MacCarthy, a firm of solicitors, he forwarded the remaining photographs to the latter firm. ... In Section 46(1) of the Income Tax Act, the verb ‘ assess” appears in a context which contains nothing to indicate the exact limits of what is embraced therein. ...

Quand la vente est moins haute, ça coûte moins cher. ’ ’ ’ Nous savons déjà que Richard Gagnon, le témoin suivant, nie énergiquement le prétendu paiement de $12,000. ... ’ D. Quel était le prix convenu? R. $68,000. Et monsieur Thibault m’a dit, exactement, en autant que je puisse me rappeler de ses paroles, et je crois m’en rappeler pas mal, monsieur Thibault m’a dit: ‘Pour ce droit de pêche-là, je peux bien te l’accorder, mais comme il n’y a pas de comptant sur l’immeuble... parce qu’il y avait trois mille piastres que le devais verser, selon l’entente,—’... il faudrait que tu me payes parce qu’il faut que je paye la commission de l’agent d’im- meuble, et ce serait normal que je te demande une somme de cinq cent piastres.” ... Moi, ça va me donner une grosse chance et ça ne lie personne.’ ”’ Pour peu que l’on compare cette raison qui, eut-elle produit le résultat espéré, épargnait à Thibault une taxe de $3,259.60, comme on le constate à la lecture de l’article 9 de l’avis d’appel, ne doit-on pas logiquement lui reconnaître beaucoup plus de plausibilité qu’à l’hypothèse d’une réduction de quelques dollars des honoraires du notaire Gauthier, selon la prétention de l’intimé. ...

In the concluding paragraph of Section 3, it is stated that ‘ * a person or persons who has or have a substantial interest in the business” and by being members of the partnership that operated the business...” ... M.N.R., [1928-34] C.T.C. 1, at 4, Audette, J., held: ‘ ‘... There is no such thing as presumption of exemption, if anything, the presumption would be in favour of the taxing power. 3/ Knely. ... Wrights’ Canadian Ropes, Limited, [1947] A.C. 109, Lord Greene speaking (p. 122): “... ...

& Co. of Canada, a registered partnership composed, it would seem, of 11 members of the same family, some of them being conversant with the fact that the Manasters had experience in construction business, approached them with a proposition to join together to set up a joint stock company to purchase land, have it subdivided and construct and sell buildings, mostly of the residential type. ... —‘retiring allowance’ means an amount received upon or after retirement from an office or employment in recognition of long service or in respect of loss of office or employment (other than a superannuation or pension benefit), whether the recipient is the officer or employee or a dependant, relation or legal representative; ’ ’ The above provisions of the Act relate to one source of income provided for in paragraph (c) of Section 3 of the Income Tax Act. ... The agreement provided the means of making profits, but they themselves did not yield profits. ’ ’ In my opinion the agreements in the present instance were to the same effect. ...

As stated in the ‘‘ Agreement on Facts’’, filed, the 17 claims owned by Albany Gold were transferred to the appellant on or about October 31, 1945. ... we feel that it (the argument) has substance and that one must get away from the notion that ‘incurred’ means ‘paid’ and that ‘incurred’ has a much broader and more comprehensive meaning and that the Pickle Crow Company did literally ‘incur’ expenses by taking upon themselves these assets in 1945 and paying the owners of them or giving them back their money in the form of shares of the Pickle Crow stock. ’ ’ It is shown that Albany River, in its balance sheet which formed part of the agreement of May 27, 1938, with the appellant, treated ‘‘exploration and development’’ expenditures as an asset; that Albany Gold, which acquired all the assets of Albany River, in its annual statements and in the agreement of 1945 with the appellant, stated its ‘‘exploration and development” expenses as an asset in the balance sheet, including therein from time to time the amount of such expenditures which were previously made by Albany River. ... From these facts I am asked to find that the substance of the series of the transactions was the purchase by the appellant from the shareholders of Albany River of an asset called “exploration and development expenses ’ ’; and that as the value and number of the shares issued by the appellant was computed on a basis which included as its main item the costs of the development work done by Albany River, that the appellant did, in fact, “incur” such costs or expenses. ...

Macrae reported the position of the directors to the meeting as: " " The directors were not satisfied with our position under the lease of June 12th, 1879. We had nothing behind our stock to maintain its value except the covenants in the lease and we did not know if the leasehold property was in good repair or could be kept in good repair, or what could be done with it when we got it back, or if we could want it back, or what damages we could get if it was not restored to us. ‘ ‘ The President and Secretary then went to New York to ascertain the position of the system. ... The offer from the Canadian National Railway was described to the meeting by the President as follows: “.. and that the negotiations had been successful and an offer had recently been made by the Great North Western Company to pay the sm of $115,660.00 for a release by this company of the covenants in the lease above mentioned. ...

Section 6(1) of R.S.C. 1952, c. 89, of the Dominion Succession Duty Act provides: “Subject to the exemptions mentioned in section 7 of this Act, there shall be assessed, levied and paid at the rate provided for in the First Schedule of this Act duties upon or in respect of the following successions, that is to say,— (a) where the deceased was at the time of his death domiciled in a province of Canada, upon or in respect of the succession to all real or immovable property situated in Canada, and all personal property wheresoever situated; ’ ’ Section 2(m) provides: ‘ ‘succession’ means every past or future disposition of property, by reason whereof any person has or shall become beneficially entitled to any property or the income thereof upon the death of any deceased person, etc., etc.” ... But it seems to me equally clear that the effect of s. 33 of the Wills Act is to confer upon him a right to dispose of it. ’ And Stirling, L.J., at page 238, said: “By s. 1 of the Finance Act, 1894, there is imposed in the case of every person dying after August 1, 1894, estate duty ‘upon the principal value, ascertained,’ as in the Act mentioned, ‘of all property, real or personal, which passes on the death of such a person.’ ...