Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

.: — The Appellant maintained horses which he raced. He argues that this resulted in his having two separate sources of business income: the maintenance of horses for racing and racing itself. Of these, only the former would fall within the extended definition of “farming” in section 248: 248(1) Definitions — In this Act,..“Farming” — “farming” includes tillage of the soil, livestock raising or exhibiting, maintaining of horses for racing, raising of poultry, fur farming, dairy farming, fruit growing and the keeping of bees, but does not include an office or employment under a person engaged in the business of farming; The Appellant’s argument cannot be reconciled with this Court’s decision in Juster v. ...

.: — This is an appeal from a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada of July 4, 1996. ... The evidence before the Tax Court Judge, in addition to the agreed facts, included a good deal of documentary evidence — some of it complex — as well as oral evidence adduced by both the Appellant and the Respondent and discovery evidence read in by the Appellant. ...

He also said that he was seeking “... the maximum yield, consistent with safety”. ... The interest income was earned, it was submitted, by “... the exertion of much activity...”. ... He concluded at 297-98: The preponderant purpose test has had wide — in fact almost complete — acceptance in Ontario and certain other provinces since the decision in The Rideau Club case. ...

I am entirely rational & would not have married just to pay more income tax! ... Thus, more than “ miniscule”, “ trivial” or “insubstantial” effects are required for a Charter violation. ... As I have indicated, the ground of discrimination — marital status — should not be confused with the group claimin discrimination — married people. ...

Marlin testified, and the defendant's counsel acknowledged, that the reason for the plaintiff’s acquisition of the Speedway land was to obtain qualified assets within the meaning of the Investment Contracts Act of Alberta)", (A.B. p. 36; C.T.C. 108), the learned Trial Judge found, nevertheless, that when the appellants "... contrived to structure this particular and chosen transaction... they... must be held to have intended: — to hold the land for only seven years or less; — not to develop it or to operate the speedway business; — not to earn revenue from it over and above the costs of carrying it; — to sell it for profit at the most propitious moment within the seven- year period after acquisition? ... The subject-matter of the realization — In this connection the authors comment: “... property which does not yield to its owner an income or personal enjoyment merely by virtue of its ownership is more likely to have been acquired with the object of a deal than property that does.” ... " He went on to add “... I very much doubt that, for many years at least... ...

.: — This is an appeal from a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada that dismissed the Appellant’s appeal to that Court. The single issue raised is the alleged failure of the Minister to reconsider the Appellant’s assessment “with all due dispatch” after receipt of a notice of objection as required by paragraph 165(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63 as amended to 1985. 165(3) Duties of Minister — Upon receipt of a notice of objection under this section, the Minister shall, (a) with all due dispatch reconsider the assessment and vacate, confirm or vary the assessment or reassess, or and he shall thereupon notify the taxpayer of his action by registered mail. ... If the Minister does not act, the taxpayer’s recourse is to appeal pursuant to section 169: 169 Appeal — Where a taxpayer has served notice of objection to an assessment under section 165, he may appeal to the Tax Court of Canada to have the assessment vacated or varied after either (a) the Minister has confirmed the assessment or reassessed, or (b) 90 days have elapsed after service of the notice of objection and the Minister has not notified the taxpayer that he has vacated or confirmed the assessment or reassessed; but no appeal under this section may be instituted after the expiration of 90 days from the day notice has been mailed to the taxpayer under section 165 that the Minister has confirmed the assessment or reassessed. ...

In the normal course of its business, amounts payable to the contractor are withheld by its customers (pursuant to the construction contracts) as “holdbacks” for a certain period of time after completion of the work and are then payable subject to specified conditions — eg certification of the work as satisfactory. lt is common ground that, at least for tax purposes, holdbacks are not, in the case of the appellant, brought into the computation of its income for any year until they are received or receivable. ... The result, as I see it, is that, apart from the special transaction, the effect of the amount held back on the appellant’s profit and loss accounts would have been (1) Year of completion — nil (2) Year of certification — holdback payment on revenue side whereas, as a result of the arrangement with the customer, the result is (1) Year of completion — holdback on revenue side — amount equal to holdback on debit side (2) Year of certification (if certified) — amount equal to holdback on revenue side. ...

Gold Futures Contracts The second major issue is whether the Associate Chief Justice erred in allowing as deductions business losses arising out of trading in gold futures by the taxpayer in each of the following taxation years, as follows: 1978 — $ 512,126 1979 934,387 1980 — 1,276,172 1981 — 4,425,186 The Crown contends that the accounting method used to record these losses by the taxpayer was not the best one, according to the evidence; hence the losses should be allowed only in the years following the individual years in which they were claimed. ...

That amount was calculated as follows: Approved capital cost: $1,173,000 x 20% — $234,600 Jobs to be created: $154.8 new jobs @ $1,500 — $232,200 Lenkurt also was paid a development incentive in the amount of $595,217 in respect of a new manufacturing facility at Winnipeg. That amount was calculated as follows: Approved capital cost: $1,628,752 x 25% — $407,188 Approved wages and salaries: $1,253,527 x 15% — $188,029 There is no significance for purposes of these appeals in the different approaches taken in the calculation of the “job creation" portions of the incentives as distinct from their “‘capital cost” portions. ...

It was incorporated as James Howden & Company (Canada) Limited, was named Howden Parsons Ltd. during the period that is relevant to the appeal, and was Howden Canada Limited when the action was instituted in the Trial Division. ... The respondent’s appeal from these reassessments was allowed by the Trial Division on the ground that the case was indistinguishable from that of The Queen v Marsh <& McLennan, Limited, [1982] 2 FC 131; [1981] CTC 410; 81 DTC 5307, in which the Trial Division had held that the interest earned by an insurance broker on the short term deposit of unremitted premiums — that is, the total amount from time to time of premiums (after deduction of the broker’s commission) that had been collected from insured but had not yet been remitted to the insurers — was Canadian investment income within the meaning of section 129. The judgment of the Trial Division in Marsh & McLennan was reversed by a majority of this Court on April 11,1983 (Court File A-675-81). ...