Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

This section reads as follows: There may be deducted from the tax otherwise payable under this Act for the taxation year by an individual resident in Manitoba on the last day of the taxation year (a) where the individual is a principal taxpayer in the taxation year, an amount calculated in respect of dwelling unit costs of the principal residence of the taxpayer, which amount is equal to the lesser of (i) $375 minus the lesser of $150 or 1 % of his taxable income in that taxation year, or (ii) the dwelling unit cost in that taxation year in respect of his principal residence; This credit is claimed not on the federal income tax return, but on an appropriate form with the said return. ...

The judgment stated further, in paragraph 10: The plaintiff, Bate, Partykan, Ryan, Bird & Williams Ltd, is not to compete with the defendant, Murray S Partykan, in respect of any policy in respect of which is bound to turn over a face sheet until it has turned over the face sheet to the defendant, Murray S Partykan. ...

Exhibit R-3 An acknowledgement by the Bank of Montreal dated December 12,1975 of having received $25,000 Government of Canada Bonds at 7 A % due December 15, 1975, held by the bank as collateral for the appellant’s loan account. ...

He then referred to the decision of Farwell, LJ in the case of Marreco v Richardson, [1908] 2 KB 584 at 593 as follows: In the more recent case of Felix Hadley & Co v Hadley (1898), 2 Ch 680, Bryne, J held that a cheque or a bill of exchange given in respect of a pre-existing debt operated as a conditional payment thereof, and on the condition being performed by actual payment, the payment related back to the time when the cheque or bill was given. ...

He pointed out that he had two jobs, one with the Quebec Government, where he worked 32 /? ...

(See: In re Bankruptcy of G & G Equipment Co Ltd, 74 DTC 6407 at 6408, per Mr Justice Berger of the British Columbia Supreme Court.) ...

The position of the respondent was that: — During the relevant period, the appellant had some sewing work done for its operations by outside enterprises; —These “outside labour costs” were not normally performed by the appellant’s employees; —These “outside labour costs’’ were incurred because of a lack of capacity of the appellant’s manufacturing process. ...

Subsection 125(1) reads: (1) There may be deducted from the tax otherwise payable under this Part for a taxation year by a corporation that was, throughout the year, a Canadian- controlled private corporation, an amount equal to 25% of the lease of (a) the amount, if any, by which (i) 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, exceeds (ii) the aggregate of all amounts each of which is a loss of the corporation for the year from an active business carried on in Canada, (b) the amount, if any, by which the corporation’s taxable income for the year exceeds the aggregage of (i) 10/4 of the aggregate of amounts deducted under subsection 126(1) from the tax for the year otherwise payable by it under this Part, and (ii) 2 times the aggregate of amounts deducted under subsection 126(2) from the tax for the year otherwise payable by it under this Part, (c) the corporation’s business limit for the year, and (d) the amount, if any, by which the corporation’s total business limit for the year exceeds its cumulative deduction account at the end of the immediately preceding taxation year, except that in applying this section for a taxation year after the 1972 taxation year, the reference in this subsection to “25%” shall be read as a reference to “24%” for the 1973 taxation year, “23%” for the 1974 taxation year, “22%” for the 1975 taxation year, and “21 %” for the 1976 and subsequent taxation years. ...

The appellant thereafter had no further obligation to pay his wife’s taxes. 3.08 In calculating his income for 1975 the appellant claimed as a deduction the sum of $29,999 paid, in the appellant’s submission, as alimony in accordance with the two aforementioned decrees. 3.09 By a notice or re-assessment, dated October 12, 1977, the respondent included in calculating the appellant’s income as taxable income a part of the amount claimed as a deduction, namely the sum of $12,699. 3.10 This amount of $12,699 represents, in the appellant’s submission, the total sum spent by the latter in 1975 to pay the taxes of Dame Gloria Fortin relating to alimony, and this amount may be broken down for greater precision as follows: 1974 federal tax $6,282 1974 provincial tax $5,850 the appellant’s error in calculating alimony $ 567 4. ...

Background In 1965, the appellant purchased a controlling interest in Grant Johnston & Co Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Grant” or “the Company”), a firm engaged in the stock brokerage business. ...