Search - 江西农大 毛瑢

The next provision relied upon by the respondent is Section 12(1)(b) of the Act which for the purpose of convenience is repeated here: ' In computing income, no deduction shall be made in respect of, (b) an outlay, loss or replacement of capital, a payment on account of capital or an allowance in respect of depreciation, obsolescence or depletion except as expressly permitted by this Part.’’ ...

Burns & Sons Ltd., in which he holds all the issued stock except for two qualifying shares and of which he has absolute control. ...

What happened after the appellants came into existence, so far as the taxable income of the three companies is concerned, may be summarized as follows: 1958 Holt Metals $28,369.30 Holt Metal Sales 14,286.28 TOTAL $42,655.58 1959 Holt Metals $22,913.59 Holt Metal Sales 16,604.81 TOTAL $39,518.40 1960 Holt Metals $ 962.19 Holt Metal Sales 14,008.97 Industrial Metals 1,057.01 TOTAL $16,028.17 1961 Holt Metals $18,591.18 Holt Metal Sales 9,111.23 Industrial Metals 8,840.49 TOTAL $31,532.90 1962 Holt Metals_. $12,060.99 Holt Metal Sales 10,406.67 Industrial Metals 14,555.32 TOTAL.- $37,022.98 1963 Holt Metals $24,257.27 Holt Metal Sales 7,697.00 Industrial Metals 17,056.07 TOTAL $49,010.34 1964 Holt Metals_. $29,311.40 Holt Metal Sales 10,480.77 Industrial Metals 25,403.80 TOTAL $65,195.97 It is the direction in relation to this latter year that is being attacked under Section 138A(3) of the Income Tax Act which reads, in part, as follows: 138A. (3) On an appeal from an assessment made pursuant to a direction under this section, the Tax Appeal Board or the Exchequer Court may (a) confirm the direction; (b) vacate the direction if (ii) in the case of a direction under subsection (2), it determines that none of the main reasons for the separate existence of the two or more corporations is to reduce the amount of tax that would otherwise be payable under this Act; or (c) vary the direction and refer the matter back to the Minister for re-assessment. ...

The volume of transactions performed and of:services rendered, is the third and last point raised by appellant in vindication of his contention that Larry Smith Inc. ‘ ‘was at all material times a viable commercial enterprise carrying. on an active business in the nature of the provision of management services, secretarial and bookkeeping services and rendering services as a land and mortgage broker’’ ef. notice of appeal, para. 12). ...

I cannot conclude that no reasonable person could take the view that it w’as not a part of the production process itself but that its function was merely to create the conditions necessary for the carrying on of the production process or, as the Board chose to put it: “.. even if the cooling action were part of the manufacturing or production of the electricity it would seem to be indirectly used rather than directly’’. ...

Clair Products & Equip ment Ltd. 2 *No doubt has been raised as to the validity of this agreement or as to its being binding on the appellant. 3 *Reference was made to a possibility that the appellant might claim to be entitled to a percentage of the cost of a cement plant built by Miron et Frères Ltée for engineering services provided by the appellant for which no charge had been made. 4 *If there had been on the facts any such “reconciliation” of over charges in previous years, it would have been a question whether it could be taken into income for the taxation year of the reconciliation or whether it would have had to be taken back to the various years of overcharge. ...

The partnership operated only three months in 1961 at a net profit of $39,712.97 and on March 31, its assets and liabilities were sold to a limited corporation called " Desbarats Rayment Advertising Ltd.’’ as of March 31, 1961, and the partnership was dissolved. ...

Chairman. ’ No formal proof of a judgment of the Board was made but whether or not a judgment was in fact rendered is in my view not material. ...

Lawson & Company, the financial year of which ended on May 81, 1955. ...

In assessing the Appellant for his 1956, 1957 and 1958 taxation years he made the following assumptions as to fact: (a) that in 1952 the Appellant purchased the Daigle Property with the view to trading in, dealing in or otherwise turning to account; (b) that in 1953 the Appellant purchased the Cadieux Property with the view to trading in, dealing in or otherwise turning to account; (¢) that a portion of the said lands were expropriated by the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission’) and the Appellant realized a profit of 29,447.00 in his 1958 taxation year; (d) that in 1956 the Appellant sold the Cadieux Property realizing a profit thereon of $30,500.00; (e) that the profit arising from the expropriation by the Commission and the profit arising from the sale of the Cadieux Property constituted part of the Appellant’s income for the relevant years since they were profits from a business or adventures in the nature of trade.’’ ...