Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

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] ...

., concurring): — This appeal is from an order of the Trial Division of October 12, 1995, which partially lifted a stay order of that Court dated November 26, 1993. ... Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd.; Manitoba Food & Commercial Workers, Local 832 v. ...

., [1996] 2 CTC 144 Hugessen J.A: — This is an appeal and a cross-appeal from a decision of the Trial Division which allowed in part claims by the respondent in respect of certain alleged overpayments of the tax imposed by section 23 of the Excise Tax Act R.S.C. 1985, c. ... Wampole & Co., [1931] S.C.R. 494, [1931] 3 D.L.R. 754 where the distribution of free samples was held to be “use”. ...

.: — The parties hereto have agreed that, despite the small amount involved, this appeal is an important one since it is a test case for a substantial number of other potential appellants whose appeals from assessments of income tax arising from largely similar facts, depend on the outcome of the appeal. ... The first meeting discussed ”... the question of taking Liquor Board Branch members off the job to escalate the Public Service/ Government Employment strike”. ...

" For example, the ethane product contains, in addition to ethane — methane, carbon dioxide (CO,) and propane. Butane contains, in addition to butane — propane and pentanes. The issues in the appeal arise because the Minister has assessed excise tax on the basis of volumes of natural gas liquids reported by Petro-Canada to the Energy Conservation Board of Alberta. ...

Freman, Hardy & Willis Ltd., [1939] 2 K.B. 1 at pages 6 and 11). Where “income” appears in subsection 83(5), it implies the profit in each year, that is, the profit derived in each year, as represented by the proceeds of sales in excess of the expenditures in that year. ... When the 36 months’ period ends the enterprise enters a new era — an era untouched by the relieving provision. ...

One business or commercial principle that has been established for so long that it is almost a rule of law is that “The profits... of any transaction in the nature of a sale must, in the ordinary sense, consist of the excess of the price which the vendor obtains on sale over what it cost him to procure and sell, or produce and sell, the article vended... ” (see The Scottish North American Trust, Ltd v Farmer (1910), 5 TC 693, per Lord Atkinson at 705). ... Accordingly would dismiss this appeal with costs. 1 “It should not be overlooked, however, that, while the appellant’s contention that it has no right to deduct costs of extraction applies to ore removed from all the haulageways superficially at least, the right to capital cost allowance is restricted, by the regulation relied on by the appellant, to the costs of re moving ore from only certain haulageways, namely, “main” haulageways. 2 *See, for example, the following cases: Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Lucas (1881), 1 TC 385, per Jessel, MR at 461-62; (1883), 2 TC 25, per the Lord Chancellor at 28; Last v London Assurance Corporation (1884), 2 TC 100, per Brett, MR at 118-19, and per Lord Fitzgerald at 128-29; Russell v Aberdeen Town & Country Club (1888), 2 TC 321, per Lord Herschell at 326-28, and per Lord Fitzgerald at 331; Gresham Life Assurance Society v Styles (1892), 3 TC 185, per Lord Halsbury, LC at 189-90, and per Lord Herschell at 193-94; Absalom v Talbot (1944), 26 TC 166, per Viscount Simon, LC at 189; and MNR v Irwin, [1964] S.C.R. 662; [1964] CTC 362; 64 DTC 5227, per Abbott, J at 664-65 [364, 5228]. ...

The application for an in camera hearing was based on the fact that the applicant, a member of a professional body, was fearful that his conduct, which would be revealed through the tax proceedings, might subject him to disciplin- fears were well-founded, he was told that if the tax case were to be publicized, a complaint was likely to be filed against him by a fellow member, he would likely be brought before a disciplinary board and he might be subject to disciplinary proceedings. [2] The applicant testified that until that conversation, his intention was to proceed with his appeal from the reassessment, but that as a result of the conversation, he ” probably won't proceed" with the appeal if it is not heard in camera. ... In the case at bar, the applicant's fear of adverse consequences on his career should the Tax Court proceedings be conducted in public cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be one of these “ clearest of circumstances” which would justify a departure from the broad principle of openness of our court system. ...