Search - 辐射监测仪 校准

I do not think it of any assistance in interpreting the words ‘“.. personal property... situated on a reserve.. ...

The firm of Tottrup & Associates Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Tottrup”) was retained by the Applicant to perform the said onsite monitoring of the manufacture of all pipe used in the Province of Manitoba by the Applicant during the said period and was paid a price for work done for the Applicant pursuant to the contracts (hereinafter called the “work done”). ...

(Cayzer, Irvine & Co, Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, page 491 ante.) ...

No case was cited in which the meaning is discussed and, in the absence of any expression of opinion on it, I think it means what is referred to as "legal possession” by Lord Cottenham in Reid v Langlois (1849), 1 Mac & G 627 at 636; 41 ER 1408 at 1411, when he said: In one sense it [the document] is in his possession; but when possession for the purpose of production is spoken of, that is to say a right and power to deal with it, actual corporeal possession is not meant, but legal possession in respect of which the party is authorized to deal with the property in question. ...

They were interested in setting up a company in the area of North Bay, Ontario to make plywood and they were in touch with Mr Frank E McConnell who was an investment dealer and president of McConnell & Company Limited. ...

During these vears his agent in Chicago had been Weinberg Bros & Company (hereinafter referred to as "Weinberg”), and he had been active on the telephone each day from the time the market opened at 9 am until he had completed his trading for that day. ...

Mr Neilson went to the head office of Swift & Co in Chicago to make an offer on this piece of property in Calgary, and as a result of this meeting, succeeded in purchasing the property, by Memorandum of Agreement dated March 28, 1969 for an amount of $100,000 payable on the following terms: a $5,000 deposit on signing; $30,000 in approximately one month; $32,500 within 2 Z? ...

On the second page of Mr Kelly’s appraisal (Exhibit A-4), the following is found: DEFINITION OF THE APPRAISAL PROBLEM The property described as Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 Loretta Avenue east, Lots 1, 2 and 3 Champagne Avenue west and part of Block C Plan 73 containing a land area of approximately 62601 square feet was sold on December 31 st, 1969, for the sum of $395,000 and the vendor and purchaser agreed on the purchase price being allocated on the following basis: Land $35,000 — Improvements $360,000. ...

That until the said promissory note is paid in full, the said shares are to be held on trust by Messrs Ballem, McDill & Maclnnes, solicitors for the Company. ...

In arriving at my decision, notwithstanding my opinion that the Board is in no way bound by the Department of National Revenue’s Interpretation Bulletins, I have taken judicial notice of its Interpretation Bulletin IT-269, which reads in part as follows:.. » Non-capital losses for purposes of paragraph 186(1)(d) include business losses for years prior to 1972 that are deemed to be non-capital losses by subsection 37(1) of the ITAR, provided the corporation qualified as a private corporation pursuant to paragraph 89(1)(f) for such prior years. ...