Search - 辐射监测仪 校准

The second is: I R v Wesleyan & General Assurance Society 30 TC 11, 16, 25 per Lord Simon: It may well be to repeat two propositions which are well-established in the application of the law relating to income tax... ...

The issue is whether the said sum which the appellant received in 1975 from Crown Cork & Seal Ltd (Crown Cork) was an item of taxable income to him as assessed by the respondent or a capital payment received by him as part of the consideration for the sale of his shares in International Laboratories Ltd. ...

In 1970, after his mother’s divorce, the appellant lived with his uncle and aunt, Mr & Mrs Chester Schwandt, and was not required to pay board or lodging but rendered services to them instead. ...

I understand that to be the frequently cited opinion of Lord Diplock in Snook v London & West Riding Investments, [1967] 1 All ER 518: I apprehend that, if [sham] has any meaning in law, it means acts done or documents executed by the parties to the “sham” which are intended by them to give to third parties or to the court the appearance of creating between the parties legal rights and obliations different from the actual legal rights and obligations (if any) which the parties intend to create. ...

The agreement set forth is that “... although the land has been registered in the name of Vincent DeBenedictis by virtue of a Deed registered on the 1st day of October 1956 as No 48561, the said land is owned in common by Vincent and Giovanna DeBenedictis and any residence built on it in the future shall also be owned in common”. ...

(Traité de droit civil du Québec, Vol 13 — H Roch, R Pare, page 335) The contribution of the partner to the partnership pursuant to Article 1830 of the Civil Code may consist of property, credit, skill or industry. ...

The appellant’s argument was as follows, and I quote paragraphs 2 and 3 of the notice of appeal: (2) Grounds of appeal The appellant disagrees with the notices of reassessment, and considers that the amounts indicated in (1) are not taxable so far as he is concerned for the following reasons: (a) the rules for appropriating capital gains and income (s 74(1) and 74(2) of the Income Tax Act) do not apply consecutively to a change of matrimonial regime from community of property to separation of property, because in order for those rules of appropriation to apply there must have been a transfer of the ownership of property, and this is impossible in the circumstances since, according to all the available precedents, the ownership of common property is indeterminate so long as the community exists; (b) this argument is also that made by Mr Marc Jolin in an address to the annual meeting in Quebec (1979) of the Canadian Tax Foundation, titled “Aspects fixcaux des régimes matrimoniaux au Québec” [tax considerations in Quebec matrimonial regimes] (see p 43 of the address); (c) this argument is also that made by Mr Pierre Dussault in an address given to the annual meeting (1974) of the Canadian Tax Foundation, titled “The taxation of spouses — A Quebec perspective” (see pp 348 to 350 of the address); (d) the validity of these arguments was confirmed on June 22, 1979 by the action of the National Assembly of Quebec in tabling Bill 42, which among other things was designed to prohibit what had previously been possible, namely the splitting of income and capital gains by the technique of changing the matrimonial regime from community of property to separation of property. ...

It is true that in Hansen, supra, Jackett, J allowed the appeal on the ground that “the purpose of the agreement was to make arrangements for the support and maintenance of the wife... ”, and that is the main point. ...

The matter having been remitted to the respondent was considered by him as directed with the result that a new decision was rendered in respect of the four publications, the relevant portion of which follows: I have reviewed these publications in light of the judgment rendered by the Federal Court of Appeal in “E W Bickle and the Minister of National Revenue”, and I have concluded that the publications “Rapid Auto Mart Magazine” and “Buy Sell & Trade” are newspapers for purposes of the Excise Tax Act. ...

Actual in- Compare—CIR v Holder, [1932] All ER 265 at 271 and Bennett & White Construction Co Ltd v MNR, [1949] CTC 1; 4 DTC 514. terest is one of those. ...