Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

I must now ask myself this question — is it any different from the taxpayer's plan in Neonex? ... I also agree with the trial judge that the legal expenses at issue herein — those incurred in an effort to complete the takeover and those incurred in seeking compensation in lieu of shares — were outlays associated with an investment transaction and thus were made on capital account. ... Now, it is quite true that in arriving at the profits or gains of a business you are not entitled, simply because — for what are likely quite prudent reasons — you either consolidate your business by not paying the profit away or enter into new speculations or increase your plant and so on — you are not entitled on that account to say that what was a profit is a profit no more. ...

In this case the issue was resolved by the trial judge as follows, Appeal Book, p. 290; [1979] C.T.C. 296 at 303: Although Defendant has an acceptable explanation as to why he took nominal sums which he required for living expenses out of the company as repayment of loans rather than as salary — Namely that the company’s affairs were so precarious when he again took over that the bank might well call its loans, putting the company into bankruptcy unless it could begin to show a profit, and I am satisfied that the tax considerations did not enter into his mind, nevertheless I am forced to the conclusion that although, at the time of the acquisition, assignment of the loans to him was of little interest to him and not a primary consideration for his reacquisition of the business, the acquisition of these loans by such assignment cannot be considered as a capital investment by him (even if he had paid some nominal sum for them) but must be considered as part and parcel of the acquisition of the business. ... Although the reasoning in the Australian case of Wills is persuasive, the weight of Canadian jurisprudence and in particular the Supreme Court case of Sissons (although the facts in it were somewhat dissimilar in that the taxpayer had deliberately purchased two loss companies and transferred a profitable business to one of them which was able to write off its losses against these profits and thus repay a loan to the other company enabling it to redeem debentures held by the taxpayer — in short a well thought out scheme) lead me to conclude that the enhancement in value of the loans to the company which he acquired from nil to a sufficient value to enable repayment of them to him to be commenced was not a capital profit resulting from circumstances which he did not control but that it was a result of Defendant’s personal efforts and hence part of an adventure in the nature of trade. ...

Issue A — The compellability of Victor Johnson to be examined for discovery either as an officer of the respondent or in his personal capacity. ... Issue B — The request for a declaration that certain loans made by Pillar International Limited to Rallip Canada Limited are relevant to the issues in this action. ...

The second issue relates to the travelling expenses of the respondent who resided at Niagara Falls, Ontario, incurred in attending at one or other of the Jockey Club’s three tracks — Woodbine and Greenwood in Toronto and Fort Erie at Fort Erie, Ontario — in order to discharge his duties of employment. ...

To put my reasons for agreeing with the learned Trial Judge in my own words, it is sufficient for me to summarize the effect of the relevant transactions — in a manner slightly different in immaterial respects from that adopted by the learned Trial Judge — as follows: 1. ...

The argument that Gustav Schickedanz controlled the respondent by virtue of paragraph 251(5)(b) of the Act is founded upon the terms of four trust indentures — identical in all material respects — pursuant to which a majority of the shares in the respondent were held. ...

York Marble, Tile & Terrazzo Ltd., [1986] S.C.R. 140; [1968] C.T.C. 44; 68 D.T.C. 5001, the trial judge held that the respondent could not be regarded as the producer or manufacturer of the used signs which it had sold because, in reconditioning these signs, the respondent had not conferred any new form, quality, property or combination on them. ... Answering this question in the affirmative, Spence, J. speaking for the Court first adopted the definition of the word ” manufacturer" used in a judgment of the Quebec Superior Court, M.N.R. v. ...

Cost to position machine at Frobisher Bay $ 2,250.00 Cost to deposition from Frobisher Bay 2,250.00 B. ... Flying 285 hours @ $380.00 $108,300.00 B. Ferrying 4,500.00 C. Crew rotations Nil D. ... George Wimpey & Co. Ltd. v. British Overseas Airways Corporation, [1955] A.C. 169 (H.L.), per Lord Reid at page 191. ...

The appellant had been employed only a short time as a commission salesman of M Greene & Associates Limited, security dealers (hereinafter referred to as “Greene & Associates’’) when he met one Dr W N Ingham, a consulting geologist, who was at the time of their meeting doing work for Greene & Associates in connection with a mining property in which they were interested. ... Kaiser entered into an underwriting-option agreement dated April 28, 1965 with Greene & Associates. ... The appellant was not a shareholder of Greene & Associates, much less a person in control of it. ...

That company, sometimes referred to as " Bomag" in the statement of agreed facts and other evidence, will hereafter be referred to as“Irvcal". ... He also found it (at 280 (D.T.C. 6149)) ” noteworthy that, insofar as the evidence discloses, neither Arthur L. ... London & West Riding Investments, Ltd., [1967] 1 All E.R. 518 at 528. ...