Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

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). ...

Union Marine & General Insurance Co. v. Bodnorchuk (1958), [1958] S.C.R. 399, 13 D.L.R. (2d) 609; Lessard v. Paquin (1974), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 665, 56 D.L.R. (3d) 726; Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Co. v. ... Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co.) (1981), [1981] 1 S.C.R. 600, 123 D.L.R. (3d) 513 ...

.: — We are all of the view that there was evidence permitting the Tax Court judge to find, as he did, that the applicant “in his capacity as director did not exercise any care, diligence or skill to prevent the failure” of the company, of which he was the 75 per cent controlling shareholder, to remit the statutory source deductions. The applicable texts are subsections 227.1(1) and 227.1(3): 227.1(1) Liability of directors — Where a corporation has failed to deduct or withhold an amount as required by subsection 135(3) or section 153 or 215, has failed to remit such an amount or has failed to pay an amount of tax for a taxation year as required under Part VII or VIII, the directors of the corporation at the time the corporation was required to deduct, withhold, remit or pay the amount are jointly and severally liable, together with the corporation, to pay that amount and any interest or penalties relating thereto 227.1(3) Limitations- A director is not liable for a failure under subsection (1) where he exercised the degree of care, diligence and skill to prevent the failure that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in comparable circumstances. ...

.: — Without necessarily endorsing all of the propositions of law adopted by the trial judge, we are nevertheless of the view that he made no error of law relevant to the result in the case at bar. ... In our opinion, the Amoco [1] and Tambrands [2] decisions of this Court cannot be taken as authorities for the earlier — and quite different- state of the Act found here. ...

In his memorandum counsel for the Crown relied on both the exclusion from foreign investment income in subparagraph (ii) of paragraph 129(4)(a) — income from a source outside Canada that is “property used or held by the corporation in the year in the course of carrying on a business” — and on the exclusion in subparagraph (iii) — income from a source outside Canada that is income from an active business — but in his oral submissions he rested his case squarely on the first exclusion. ... In The Queen v Marsh & McLennan, Limited, Court File A-675-81, Judgment April 11, 1983, this Court had to consider the exclusions from Canadian investment income as defined by section 129 in relation to 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. ... For the reasons which I briefly indicated in Marsh & McLennan I am of the Opinion that the same view must be taken of the interest on the US dollar deposits in the present case. ...

If there is a contract of employment, by definition, remuneration thereunder is income for purposes of Part I of the Income Tax Act.t [4] 1 “It is not necessary, on this appeal, to consider whether amounts paid as “strike pay’’ may, as such, be income receipts for income tax purposes. 2 ** Compare Snook v London & West Riding Investments Ltd, [1967] I All ER 518 and Minister of National Revenue v J A Cameron, [1974] S.C.R. 1062; [1972] CTC 380; 72 DTC 6325. 3 + Compare Griffiths (Inspector of Taxes) v J P Harrison (Watford), Ltd, [1962] 1 All ER 909; Bishop (Inspector of Taxes) v Finsbury Securities, Ltd, [1966] 3 All ER 105, and FA ET AB Ltd v Lupton (Inspector of Taxes), [1971] 3 All ER 948. 4:] See section 3 of the Income Tax Act. ...

Doubtless to Hospital Publications Incorporated — a New York corporation, which granted to the appellant the right and licence to use the name “Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality (Canadian Edition)” — advertising and financial reward therefrom was an important consideration. ... I am of the view that if the periodical itself is such that the principal function of its content — the material which it contains — is to encourage, promote or develop fine arts, letters, scholarship or religion, it comes within paragraph 19(4)(b) whether or not the publisher hopes to make money from its publication and whether or not he does make money from it. ...

That intention does not meet the standard required by Canadian — or California — law. ... While there may have been joint ownership of the HCP project which gave rise to the claimed losses, that joint ownership was designed to be — and was — only momentary. ... Q. — in this partnership? You assumed that as a fact? A. Yes, I did. ^ [36] These vital facts cannot be assumed. ...

In the now classic words of Parke, B, in Norton v Ellam, 2 2M & W 461: a promissory note, payable on demand, is a present debt, and is payable without any demand (at page 464). ... The appeal will therefore be allowed with costs here and in the Trial Division. 1 * Brown v Brown, [1893] 2 Ch 300; Royal Bank v Hogg, [1930] 2 DLR 488; Spencer Investments Ltd v Hansford, 48 DLR (3d) 474. ...

Therefore, his appeal must be dismissed, with — as the general rule provides — costs. ...