Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

.: — This is an application for judicial review of a decision of September 27, 1996 of the Chief Judge of the Tax Court of Canada in which he refused the request for an adjournment of the hearing of the applicants’ eight appeals which was to take place October 9, 1996. ...

The codicil which I have already mentioned replaced paragraphs (a) and (b) of article 8 of the will with the following provisions:.. » I name my wife the administrative and usufructuary trustee of all my property. ...

.: — By an order of September 29, 1992, the Trial Division dismissed the appellant’s application under section 179 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, as amended by S.C. 1985, c. 45, to hold proceedings in camera. ...

Only in the $0 — $10,000 and $10- $20,000 ranges are the number of winners (90 and 279 respectively) greater than the number of losers (0 and 62). ... These are the figures: Income range Winners Winners Losers $20 — $30,000 42 105 $30- $40,000 2 71 $40 — $50,000 6 18 $50,000 + — 7 Overall, in 59 per cent of the cases the parents pay less tax on the maintenance payments than they would if there was no inclusion/deduction requirement ("winners"); 37 per cent of parents suffer a tax disadvantage under the present regime ("losers") and in four per cent of cases the result is neutral. ... Assuming, for argument's sake only, that this is a legitimate exercise, the results are not very much more favourable to the government's case: Income range Wi nners Losers $0-$10,000 90 $10-$20,000 305 38 $20 — $30,000 66 82 $30- $40,000 6 65 $40- $50,000 8 16 $50,000 + 1 6 Again the winners outnumber the losers only where the income of the custodial parent is in the two lowest ranges. ...

Ct. 1971) (1972); Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 961 F.2d 1255 (U.S. 6th Cir. 1992); and Tower Loan of Mississippi, Inc. v. ... Shaw, Insurance Broking and Agency: The Law and the Practice (London: Witherby & Co. ... Ct. 1971), at p. 403; Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 961 F.2d 1255 (U.S. 6th Cir. 1992); Tower Loan of Mississippi, Inc. v. ...

Deduction from corporate tax: manufacturing and processing profits (1) There may be deducted from the tax otherwise payable under this Part by a corporation for a taxation year an amount equal to the aggregate of (a) 9% of the lesser of (i) the amount, if any, by which the corporation's Canadian manufacturing and processing profits for the year exceed the least of the amounts determined under paragraphs 125(1)(a) to (d) in respect of the corporation for the year, and (3)(a) "Canadian manufacturing and processing profits" — Canadian manufacturing and processing profits" of a corporation for a taxation year means such portion of the aggregate of all amounts each of which is the income of the corporation for the year from an active business carried on in Canada as is determined under rules prescribed for that purpose by regulation made on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance to be applicable to the manufacturing or processing in Canada of goods for sale or lease; and (b) Manufacturing or processing — “manufacturing or processing" does not include (iv) Operating an oil or gas well, 5200. ... For convenience' sake, I repeat subsection 125.1(3)(a) of the Act: (3)(a) "Canadian manufacturing and processing profits" — “Canadian manufacturing and processing profits" of a corporation for a taxation year means such portion of the aggregate of all amounts each of which is the income of the corporation for the year from an active business carried on in Canada as is determined under rules prescribed for that purpose by regulation made on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance to be applicable to the manufacturing or processing in Canada of goods for sale or lease;... ...

Inferences issue As I understand it, the appellant quarrels with the trial judge’s finding that the information sought pursuant to the paragraph 231.2(1)(a) “ requirements” was not being sought at the request of the RCMP for the purpose of prosecuting the criminal charges referred to above. ... & O.R. loc. cit., 65 N.R. 224n; R. v. Manninen (1983), 8 C.C.C. (3d) 193 at p. 199, 3 D.L.R. (4th) 541, 48 O.R. (2d) 731 (Ont. ... La Forest, J., speaking for the Court, noted, at page 992, that a remedy under that subsection is available: ”... not only in the case of an actual interference with the guaranteed rights, but also when an apprehension of such an interference at a future trial can be established by an applicant. ...

.: — This appeal from a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada arises out of an assessment of the appellant’s income for the taxation year 1990, which included a portion of the cost of an expense-paid trip taken by the appellant and his wife to New Orleans on the basis that the appellant received in that year a taxable “benefit” under paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5th Supplement), c. 1, as amended. ... Having said that, I note that the courts are having increasing recourse to such Bulletins and they appear quite willing to see an ambiguity in the statute — as a reason for using them — when the interpretation given in a Bulletin squarely contradicts the interpretation suggested by the Department in a given case or allows the interpretation put forward by the taxpayer. ...

In British Motor Syndicate, Ltd v Taylor & Son, Ltd (6), Stirling, J, pointed out that ([1900] 1 Ch at p 583) “The first meaning assigned to the word ‘use’ in JOHNSON’S DICTIONARY is ‘to employ to any purpose’; it is, therefore, a word of wide signification.” ... A recent statement of the principle is that of Viscount Simonds in Minister of National Revenue v Anaconda American Brass Ltd [[1956] AC 85 at 100, [1955] CTC 311, 55 DTC 1220.]: “The income tax law of Canada, as of the United Kingdom, is built upon the foundations described by Lord Clyde in Whimster & Co v Inland Revenue Commissioners, (1925) 12 TC 813, 823, in a passage cited by the Chief Justice which may be repeated. ... Compare, for example, the situation in R v Henry K Wampole & Company, Limited, [1931] S.C.R. 494. ...

The opening paragraph of the original agreement reads as follows: “The undersigned, JACK MENDLEWITZ (as Purchaser) hereby agrees to and with BRAMPTON REALTY LIMITED (as Vendor) through Drillich & Company Realty Limited, agent for the Vendor, to purchase all and singular the lands and premises owned by the Vendor lying in the Borough of Scarborough, being on the north side of Sheppard Avenue East and the East Side of Birchmount Road, and being sufficient lands for two apartment buildings containing 307 suites (each site of approximate equal size), one of which sites is at the corner of Sheppard and Birchmount Avenues, at the price or sum of EIGHT HUNDRED AND FORTY-FOUR THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS ($844,250.00) of lawful money of Canada, payable as follows.” ... Thus in Turney v Zhilka, [1959] S.C.R. 578, at 583-4 where in the absence of a power of waiver the Supreme Court held, inter alia, that specific performance could not be granted, Judson, J, said: The obligations under the contract, on both sides, depend upon a future uncertain event, the happening of which depends entirely on the will of a third party — the Village council. This is a true condition precedent — an external condition upon which the existence of the obligation depends. ...