Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

— because it is an objection, they say, which is not in any way within the scope of section 222 of the Income Tax Act and has nothing to do with the debt being recovered. ... In my opinion, a finding by a court that the contract on which the third party relies to challenge the legitimacy of the seizure, or to argue that it has nothing to pay, is a sham, or, though real, cannot be set up against the garnisher — which as I mentioned is the purpose of the Paulian action — is still a decision directly connected with compulsory execution of the judgment. ...

I * That is the background against which Thurlow A.C.J. found as a fact that the purpose of the expenditure was to alleviate the undesirable effects of traffic congestion on the ongoing operations of the shopping centre: The need or occasion for the expenditure, in my view, was the undesirable effects which traffic congestion was causing and could be expected to cause on the popularity of the shopping centre..? ... Moreover, while the undesirable effects of traffic congestion on the popularity of the shopping centre and on its prospects for competing with a rival shopping centre might conceivably have led to some other whole or partial solution involving an outlay of a capital nature, such as to restructure the shopping centre or its buildings or its means of access, and ress and some such outlays may indeed have been made), this is 0t whal t expimditure here in es on was for The mane ’ was not cid or change in 0r additions to the la' li " ULeilk. ises or the buildings thereon or in connection with the structure s of the plaintiff's business^ Rather, it was paid to induce the City to make changes on City property that could be beneficial to the plaintiff in achieving its object of promoting its business by enhancing the popularity of its shopping centre. [13] *[emphasis added] Here, the exchange of land and the payment for the relocation of Pierre Corneille Street are not severable. ...

A Well, I got a frantic call one night about — I remember it was just before we went home so I figured it was about five o’clock at night — from the Department, and in the first place I was surprised because I didn’t know they worked that late. ... In view of these provisions and the decisions of the Privy Council in McHugh v Union Bank, of the Supreme Court in Smith & Rhuland Ltd v The Queen Ex Rel Brice Andrews et al [6], and of this Court in The Queen v Stevenson Construction Co Ltd [7], I am of the opinion that the authority of subsection 44(1) to make refunds is permissive and leaves the authority charged with its administration with a discretion whether or not to grant the refund. ...

In my opinion, the fact that these periodic payments of money by the association to the appellant were called “subscriptions” — the word used by the legislature in section 16, which in any case is a neutral term as such, as Casey, J. noted in his reasons in Richelieu Royal v. Duclos, [1950] K.B. 714, at pages 717-18 — or were called “advances”, does not affect the matter. ...

With respect to “garden seeders” the Tariff Board itself in Mercury Tool & Stamping Limited v The Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise (1962), 2 TBR 328 held that a lawn spreader was not a graden seeder not because it was not an agricultural implement (though it also held that it was not) but because it was for seeding lawns and not gardens. ... I have also turned up a case involving a toll clause in a railway act in which the phrase “‘all sorts of manure” was held to include artificial as well as natural fertilizers (Aberdeen Commercial Co v Great Northern (Scotland) Railway (1878), 3 Ry & Can Traffic Ca 205). ...

I do not think that the words in paragraph (h) — “grant, subsidy or other assistance from a... public authority” — have any application to an ordinary business contract negotiated by both parties to the contract for business reasons. ...

In this situation if there is error in the Board’s finding that the vehicles are trailers for use as homes, — and I do not imply that there is, — it is at most an error of fact, not one of law. ...

Minister of National Revenue [3] *. In that case, an Indian woman who had been working in a hospital which served primarily her Reserve community and which was adjacent to but not technically on the Indian Reserve was exempted pursuant to paragraph 87(1)(b) from paying tax on her employment income. ... Elaborating on the latter, the appellant submits that while the majority of his work is performed off the Reserve, this situation is no different than that in Nowegijick v. /?., ...

Le Dictionnaire Quillet de la Langue Française gives as the first meaning of the adjective “supposé” — “Donné comme vrai quoique faux”, and of the verb “supposer” — “Poser une chose pour établie, afin d’en tirer ensuite les conséquences”. ...

Amounts to be included in income for year (1) Without restricting the generality of section 3, there shall be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year, (b) Alimony — any amount received by the taxpayer in the year, pursuant to a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal or pursuant to a written agreement, as alimony or other allowance payable on a periodic basis for the maintenance of the recipient thereof, children of the marriage, or both the recipient and children of the marriage, if the recipient was living apart from, and was separated pursuant to a divorce, judicial separation or written separation agreement from, the spouse or former spouse required to make the payment at the time the payment was received and throughout the remainder of the year; The Tax Review Board concluded that:... amounts to be included in income by virtue of section 56(1)(b) of the Act must be received exactly according to the terms in the relevant order or agreement, and such terms must include details of the regularized pattern of payment agreed upon. ... However, in this Court the parties agreed that LaBrash had paid the respondent $3,000 in the 1976 taxation year. 2 *Dorila Trottier v MNR, [1968] CTC 324; 68 DTC 5216 AT 32, [5219]. 3 f For a similar view — see The Queen v Pascoe, [1975] CTC 656; 75 DTC 5427 at 658, [5428] ...