Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

The Interpretation of Section 60 of the Income Tax Act The appellant submits that the rationale for the exception provided by paragraph 60(b) which, in effect, allows income splitting between former spouses or separated persons, is to distribute the tax burden between them, thus allowing them greater financial resources than when living together which, in turn, provides partial compensation for the lost economics of maintaining a single household. [3] The appellant then proceeds to quote section 11 of the Interpretation Act which deems every enactment to be remedial and requires ”... a fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects.” ... Applying that approach to the paragraph in question, I conclude that the words employed by Parliament in paragraph 60(b) must be interpreted ”... in their ordinary grammatical sense. ... The Queen, [1977] C.T.C. 358; 77 D.T.C. 5219 per Mahoney, J. 6 It should be remembered that subsection 9(1) of the Federal Court Act and subsection 8(1) of the Tax Court of Canada both require that the Judges of those respective Courts must, before entering upon the duties of that office ”... take an oath that he will duly and faithfully, and to the best of his skill and knowledge, execute the powers and trusts reposed in him as a judge...” of the Court to which he has been appointed. ...

Secondly, a norm cannot be regarded as a “law’’ unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate h»s conduct: he must be able — if need be with appropriate advice — to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail. ... It clearly sets no limit, reasonable or otherwise, on which an argument can be mounted that it falls within the saving words of s 1 of the Charter — “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law”’. ... In this respect, he points to cases such as Gordon & Gotch (Canada) Ltd v Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise, [1978] 2 FC 603, and R v Popert, 58 CCC (2d) 505. ...

As stated in Lindley &. Banks on Partnership (17th ed., 1995), at p. 73: In determining the existence of a partnership... regard must be paid to the true contract and intention of the parties as appearing from the whole facts of the case. ... Bromberg, Professor of Law at Southern Methodist University and counsel to the firm of Jenkins & Gilchrist. ... I think the words at paragraph 2.05 of the 17th edition of Lindley & Banks must be read in this context. ...

(Citation omitted)^ [5] The Supreme Court’s direction is unambiguous: while courts are not to alter the wording chosen by Parliament, there are many sections in this Act — which runs over 1000 pages of very small print — which are ambiguous or unclear. ... First, such a reading of section 55(5) divorces the law from its original purpose and would permit capital gains stripping — the very mischief which section 55 seeks to prevent — in any situation where capital gain exists in foreign affiliates. ... Thus, the Tax Court Judge correctly relied on Johns-Manville Canada Inc. v. /?. ...

A City Report in 1955 recommended the rebuilding of the bridge at a location 1000 feet east of its old location and the site selected for the location of the proposed shopping centre was a block of some 20 acres, known as Block “J” bounded by Broad Street (as relocated) on the west — Hillsdale on the east — 21st Avenue on the north — 25th Avenue on the south. ... Appellant’s counsel next submitted that the appellant’s situation was that of every investor who enters into a purchase with a recognition that he may dispose of his property under certain future conditions — something less than (in fact, something of essentially different character from) an intention to sell if his project becomes frustrated. ...

Provided they exercised their discretion judicially — as normally they would — that was to be the end of the matter. 2. ... South Indian Shipping Corp., [1981] A.C. 909, [1981] 1 All E.R. 289 (H.L.) and Paul Wilson & Co. ... Proctor & Gamble Inc. (1989), 23 C.I.P.R. 237, 24 C.P.R. (3d) 388 (F.C.T.D.), per Reed, J.; David v. ...

John Long controlled three companies — Pakall Limited, Pakall Manufacturing Limited and Pakall Compaction Equipment Limited. ... Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that, as found by the trial judge, the obligation to pay the commissions on the ten machines was “‘.... a deferred obligation on account of the initial purchase price of the assets purchased from Pakall”. ... In the Atherton case, Viscount Cave, LC, at 213 made these pronouncements which have been quoted in tax cases countless times: Now, in Vallambrosa Rubber Co v Farmer [2] Lord Dunedin, as Lord President of the Court of Session, expressed the opinion that “in a rough way” it was “not a bad criterion of what is capital expenditure — as against what is income expenditure — to say that capital expenditure is a thing that is going to be spent once and for all, and income expenditure is a thing that is going to recur every year”; and no doubt this is often a material consideration. ...

.: — In our view as it was the female parent who, on the facts as found below, was the person who “primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing” of the children of the marriage, only that parent may be properly regarded as the person entitled to child care benefits as provided for in section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act [1] and section 6302 of the Regulations [2] made pursuant to that section of the statute. ...

.: — This application by the Crown was heard at the same time as similar applications in Court Files A-305-94 and A-306-94. ...

.: — We have not been persuaded that the learned Tax Court judge erred in any material respect. ...