Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

Trew Security & Communication Ltd. v. M.N.R., docket 97-1887-UI Date: 19991026 Dockets: 97-1887-UI; 97-195-CPP; 97-2084-UI; 97-218-CPP; 97-2085-UI; 97-219-CPP; BETWEEN: TREW SECURITY AND COMMUNICATIONS LTD., PATRICIA WALLACE, DOUGLAS WALLACE, Appellants, and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, Respondent, Reasons for Judgment MacLatchy, D.J.T.C.C. [1] These appeals were heard on common evidence at Toronto, Ontario on July 8, 1999. [2] The opening statements of these appeals clarified the positions of the parties. [3] The Respondent conceded that the appeals filed by Douglas Wallace and Patricia Wallace for unemployment insurance purposes should be allowed as both Douglas and Patricia Wallace were at all relevant times owners and each controlled more than 40% of the voting shares of Trew Security and Communications Ltd., the Payor. The Appellants were not engaged in insurable employment within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Act (the " Act ") and Employment Insurance Act (the " Amended Act ") for the 1995 taxation year as each Appellant controlled more than 40% of the voting shares of the Payor with the result that the employment was excepted by paragraph 3(2)(d) of the Act and paragraph 5(2)(b) of the Amended Act. [4] No amount of the unemployment insurance premiums or employment insurance premiums assessed the Payor relate to the employment of either Patricia or Douglas Wallace as it was determined above that their employment with the Payor during both 1995 and 1996 taxation years was not insurable employment. [5] The Payor applied to the Respondent for reconsideration of the assessments of October 16, 1996. [6] By letter dated September 10, 1997, the Respondent informed the Payor that it had been determined that the Payor's workers (Robbie Robert Wallace and Wayne Hilts) were employed pursuant to a contract of service and, accordingly, the Respondent confirmed the assessments of October 16, 1996. [7] In making his decision, the Respondent relied on the following facts set out in paragraph 11 of the Amended Reply to the Notice of Appeal in the case of Trew Security and Communications Ltd. (97-1887(UI)): "(a) the Appellant is an incorporated business of which, at all material times, Douglas Wallace and Patricia Wallace were shareholders; (b) Patricia and Douglas Wallace are married to each other; (c) the Appellant operates a small service business involved in the installation of burglar and fire alarms, central vac, television and telephone systems and intercoms in personal residences; (d) during the 1995 taxation year, Patricia and Douglas Wallace were severally paid by cheque the amount of $36,000.00 as management fees; (e) at all relevant times, Douglas Wallace owned and controlled more than 40% of the voting shares of the Appellant; (f) the Appellant engaged Robbie Wallace and Wayne Hilts as workers (the "Workers"); (g) the Workers were employed by the Appellant pursuant to contracts of service. ... Although called a "management fee", such payment really constituted pensionable employment and within the meaning of subsection 27(5) and paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Canada Pension Plan (the " Plan ") as amended. ...

The said application reads as follows: IN RE the Application under Section 174 of the Income Tax Act Between: CAVERHILL, LEARMONT & CO LIMITED, Appellant, — and — THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, Respondent, — and — CANADIAN HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRIES, Third Party. ... B) THE TAXPAYERS THAT THE RESPONDENT SEEKS TO HAVE BOUND BY THE DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION ARE: — CAVERHILL, LEARMONT & CO LIMITED — CANADIAN HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRIES C) STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS: 1. ... Horticultural Industries having participated in a common transaction with Caverhill, Learmont & Co Limited, an appellant before this Board, the Board orders that Canadian Horticultural Industries be joined to the appeal of Caverhill, Learmont & Co Limited. ...

The said application reads as follows: IN RE the Application under Section 174 of the Income Tax Act Between: CAVERHILL, LEARMONT & CO LIMITED, Appellant, — and — THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, Respondent, — and — CANADIAN HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRIES, Third Party. ... B) THE TAXPAYERS THAT THE RESPONDENT SEEKS TO HAVE BOUND BY THE DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION ARE: — CAVERHILL, LEARMONT & CO LIMITED — CANADIAN HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRIES C) STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS: 1. ... Horticultural Industries having participated in a common transaction with Caverhill, Learmont & Co Limited, an appellant before this Board, the Board orders that Canadian Horticultural Industries be joined to the appeal of Caverhill, Learmont & Co Limited. ...

Each case stands on its own merits. [5]      In making his decision, the Minister relied on the following assumptions of fact: [TRANSLATION] (a)         The appellant was incorporated on July 1, 1995, as a result of a merger between Groupe Desmarais Inc. and Assurances Pinsonneault, Avard, Paré Inc.; (b)         The appellant's capital stock is distributed as follows:            - Gestion A.C.D. Inc. holds 60% of the voting shares;            - Yvon Pinsonneault holds 20% of the said shares; and            - Martin Avard holds 20% of the said shares; (c)         The capital stock of Gestion A.C.D. ... Watson Appearances Counsel for the Appellant:                             Rock Guertin Counsel for the Respondent:                         Dany Leduc JUDGMENT           The appeal is allowed and the Minister's decision vacated in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment. ...

La Ronge Lumber & Electric LTD v. Minister of National Revenue, [1985] 2 CTC 2271, 85 DTC 573 Sarchuk, TCJ:—The appeal of La Ronge Lumber & Electric Ltd (La Ronge) relates to an assessment by the Minister of National Revenue of penalty and interest on the appellant’s income tax liability for its 1981 taxation year. ... Mr Garrison responded by letter dated November 18, 1981 in the following words: We have completed the necessary arrangement with the Bank of Montreal, La Ronge, for Guarantees as follows: Edwin Elton Tubman — $21,874.22 La Ronge Lumber & Electric Ltd. — 16,466.76 The latter amount is $7,000.00 more than required. ... It is well settled law that “... When a debtor is making a payment to his creditor he may appropriate the money as he pleases, and the creditor must apply it accordingly. ...

Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim and AP&C ADVANCED POWDERS & COATINGS INC. ... “Nicholas McHaffie” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-126-19   STYLE OF CAUSE: TEKNA PLASMA SYSTEMS INC v AP&C ADVANCED POWDERS & COATINGS INC   PLACE OF HEARING: HEARD IN WRITING   ORDER AND REASONS: MCHAFFIE J.   DATED: December 5, 2024   WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: François Guay Jean-Sébastien Dupont Audrey Berteau   FOR THE PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT BY COUNTERCLAIM Andrew Brodkin Ben Hackett   FOR THE DEFENDANT/PLAINTIFF BY COUNTERCLAIM SOLICITORS OF RECORD: SMART & BIGGAR LLP Montreal, Quebec   FOR THE PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT BY COUNTERCLAIM GOODMANS LLP Toronto, Ontario FOR THE DEFENDANT/PLAINTIFF BY COUNTERCLAIM   ...

John Crosier, Lucille E Crosier, Albin Trella, Elizabeth Trella, Victor Prousky, Morris Prousky, 233482 Investments Limited, T Caravaggio & Son Limited, Manfred Feldt, Jean Mary Haschyc, Mendel Goldstein, Harry Teperman, David Irving Teperman, Burstein Bag Limited, Burstein Bag Limited v. ... The following schedule sets out the basic particulars of the property interest of the appellants: Property Year Appellants Appellants Karopa Hilltown 1974 John Crosier X 1974 Lucille E Crosier X 1974 Albin Trella X 1974 Elizabeth Trella X 1974 Victor Prousky X 1974 Morris Prousky X 1975 233482 Investments Limited X 1975 T Caravaggio & Son Limited X 1974 Manfred Feldt X 1974 Jean Mary Haschyc X 1974 Mendel Goldstein X 1974 Harry Teperman X 1974 David Irving Teperman X 1974 Burstein Bag Limited X 1975 Burstein Bag Limited X The following information directly relevant to the appellant Burstein is common to all appellants with respect to either one or the other parcel of real estate as indicated above: —The appellant held interest in two joint ventures known as Hilltown Developments Ltd (“Hilltown”) and Karopa Enterprises Ltd (“Karopa”); —The subject assets of these joint ventures were two pieces of raw land abutting each other in the Town of Oakville near the border line with the City of Mississauga; —The original participants and their respective percentage interests of Karopa were as follows: —Shortly after the purchase of the Karopa Property, Doug Roher and Lou Sherriff, the beneficial owners of K Roher Construction Limited and Lyrad Construction Limited respectively, which corporations in partnership owned Briar Developments, declared personal bankruptcy and thereafter Briar Developments ceased its participation in Karopa; Briar Developments (Roher & Sherriff) 29.7% Burstein Bag Limited 26.9% Crosier 1.4% Goldstein 1.7% McGuigan & Feldt 5.2% Prousky (Victor & Morris) 2.3% Trella (Elizabeth & Albin) 5.9% Warwick 11.2% Welta Wool.2% Feldstein 5% Flishlek.3% Rotsteins.3% Steiglan 6.6% Tomco 1.0% 233482 Investments Limited 7.7% 100.0% UUIJ I, IvVV, (“Karopa”) for $832,742.00 satisfied as follows: Cash $245,207.97 29.4% 1st Mortgage 301,867.03 36.2% 2nd Mortgage 50,750.00 6.1 % 3rd Mortgage 234,492.00 28.2% Taxes, etc 425.00.1 % $832,742.00 100.0% — During 1972, other participants of Karopa also encountered financial difficulties, and a reorganization occurred with the remaining participants taking over the vacated syndicate participation, the result being that the eventual composition of the Karopa joint venture was as follows: Burstein Bag Limited 35.720% T Caravaggio & Son Ltd 17.860% 233482 Investments Ltd 10.716% Jean Haschyc 5.706% Elizabeth Trella 5.706% Albin Trella 3.224% Joseph Rajca Jr 3.224% Mendel Goldstein 3.572% Manfred Feldt 3.572% Prousky (Victor & Morris) 3.556% John Crosier (husband & 1.786% Lucille Crosier wife) 1.786% Dorothy McGuigan 1.786% Beverly Young 1.786% 100.000 % Limited for a consideration of $1,901,664, realizing a gross profit of $1,068,922. ... No commission was paid by the group on the sale of the property. — In light of the whole history of the property, the amount received by the appellant as proceeds of disposition of its interest in that property was a Capital receipt. — In any event, the gain attributable to the portion of the appellant’s interest in the property that was acquired when Briar withdrew from the group was a Capital gain in that the appellant was forced to acquire that interest in order to protect its investment in the property. ...

Queen & Metcalfe Carpark Ltd. v. MNR, 74 DTC 6007, [1973] CTC 810 (FCTD), aff'd [1976] CTC xvi (FCA) Sweet, D.J. ... November 6, 1967 $2,182.57 December 30, 1967 $4,164.94 December 15, 1967 $ 279.98 February 9, 1968 $2,019.32 March 11, 1968 $ 320.03 April 11, 1968 $ 79.60 May 14, 1968 $ 12.03 May 31, 1968 $ 12.35 August 31, 1968 $ 4.15 Smith, Winston, Wolman, Roth & Smith November 7, 1967 $500.00 This is a firm of chartered accountants. ... A H Fitzsimmons & Co Limited December 22, 1967 $1,025.30 March 30, 1968 $1,307.17 Mr. ...

Hollander & Sons Ltd. v. His Majesty the King, [1928-34] CTC 297, [1920-1940] DTC 275 MACLEAN P. ... The respondents, aS we have already observed, are not within s. 87 but, if they are a ‘producer’ or " manufacturer ‘ they are within s. 86.” ... If “transactions” means that the contract for the labour involved in dressing and dyeing the furs of customers was taxable as a sale against the dresser and dyer that would give to " " sale ” a meaning utterly foreign to the whole spirit of the Act; including even sec. 87(a), (b) and (d). ...

It was held that the assessment in question was on Sifton ‘s income for 1924 and that by various enactments referred to, the municipality was prohibited from attempting to exercise jurisdiction outside the municipality and was exceeding its powers to " " levy on the whole rateable property within the municipality.’’ ... It is, I think, incontrovertible that neither plant nor equipment is, in such sense, " " paid for ‘ ‘ by the Crown. ... It is for determining " " all matters brought before the Commission’’ that the jurisdiction is declared, but those matters are such as come by way of appeal, and I see nothing in the section which introduces a new and original authority to deal with those matters in other than. the administrative manner in which they have already been dealt with: I see nothing intended to confer a purely judicial function dealing with civil rights. ...