Search - 辐射监测仪 校准

The relevant part of Rule 302 here is the part that provides that “... non-compliance with any of these Rules... shall not render any proceeding void unless the Court shall so direct, but such proceedings may be set aside either wholly or in part as irregular, or amended, or otherwise dealt with in such manner and upon such terms as the Court shall think fit”. ...

If he was successful in that field as well, he was to get a further 1624 %. ...

The following cases are included in those cited by counsel: J A Taylor v MNR, [1956] CTC 189; 56 DTC 1125; Irrigation Industries Ltd v MNR, [1962] CTC 215; 62 DTC 1131; Me Laws v MNR, 37 Tax ABC 132; 65 DTC 1; J Funk v MNR, 37 Tax ABC 391; 65 DTC 139; Western Leaseholds Ltd v MNR, [1959] CTC 531; 59 DTC 1316; Os/er, Hammond & Nanton Ltd v MNR, [1963] CTC 164; 63 DTC 1119; N R Whittali v MNR, [1967] CTC 377; 67 DTC 5264; Admiral Investments Ltd v MNR, [1967] 2 Ex CR 308; [1967] CTC 165; 67 DTC 5114; Estate of Frederick J Thompson v MNR, [1970] Tax ABC 739; 70 DTC 1473; Swansburg v MNR, [1972] CTC 2125; 72 DTC 1096; Wellington Hotel Holdings Ltd v MNR, [1973] CTC 473; 73 DTC 5391. ...

The facts in this case are as follows: Honoré and René Hawey, two brothers (hereinafter called “Honoré” and “René”), each held an equal number of common shares of the stock of Cantin & Fils Limitée (“Cantin”) and of Immeubles RE-HO Inc (“Re-Ho”). 1. ...

The request is made in four different proceedings: (1) Mastino Developments Ltd and the Queen, where the taxpayer is described as plaintiff (appellant) and the other party as the Queen, defendant (respondent) and where the proceedings are described as a statement of claim and contain a number of allegations; (2) Welland Chemical of Canada Ltd and the Minister of National Revenue where the taxpayer is described as the appellant and the Minister of National Revenue is described as representing Her Majesty the Queen as respondent and where the document contains the following words: “Notice of appeal is hereby given from the income tax assessments... ” and the grounds for appeal are dealt with under the following separate headings: (A) Statement of facts and summary reassessments; (B) Statutory provisions and reasons which the appellant intends to submit to show that the respondent’s reassessments are in error. ...

In my opinion the effect of the 1962 amendment in question was not retrospective in enacting that in future taxation years* [2] certain new taxation rules should apply, which referred to and were defined by the circumstances and effect of past transactions, that is to say, as applied to this case, the transaction by which the appellant’s property was acquired by the Sharpies Oil Corporation in 1960 — a transaction which in that taxation year involved no tax consequence at all. ...

(e) In the event of the death of all the children of the settlor (born prior to the 31st day of December, 1964) before any of them attain the age of twenty-one (21) years and none of such deceased children of the Settlor are survived by a child or children who attain the age of twenty-one (21) vears, then the trust fund shall be paid, transferred and delivered to DINA HASHMAN (wife of the Settlor); PROVIDED THAT if she be not then living then the trust fund shall be paid, transferred and delivered to ISAAC HASHMAN. brother of the Settlor, and EDITH SUGARMAN, sister of the Settior, in equal shares and if either of the said Isaac Hashman or Edith Sugarman be not then living, then the trust fund then remaining shall be paid to the survivor thereof and if the survivor thereof be then deceased to the children then living of both the said Isaac Hashman and of the said Edith Sugarman — the trust fund to be distributed to all such children in equal shares. ...

By six similar Notices of Reassessment dated September 17, 1970 the Minister reassessed the appellant under section 56 of the Income Tax Act for penalties as follows: Taxation Year Penalty reassessed 1962 $ 650.74 1963 3,021.13 1964 852.93 1965 2,013.80 1966 3,093.23 1967 1,972.45 Total: $11,604.28 There are two questions in issue in this appeal, the first being: can subsection 239(3) of the amended Income Tax Act be construed as applicable to the taxation years prior to 1972? ...

Goodman & Carr in October 1969 by two officers of the appellant including Mr. ...

(e) That upon assessing the Appellant for 1967 he has properly computed in the under-stated manner the deduction to which the Appellant is entitled in respect of the capital cost of property used for the purpose of gaining income from farming in that year: Capital cost allowance claimed $4,710.04 Less: capital cost allowance for period 1st January to 24th June, 1967 175 X $5,778.37 — 2,770.45 365 Amount of claim disallowed upon assessment $1,939.59 (f) That upon assessment for 1968 he has properly disallowed $5,392.16 claimed as farming expenses and capital cost allowance on property used in the business of farming because the Appellant was not carrying on the business of farming, nor in fact carrying on any business upon or with respect to the heretofore mentioned 117 acres of property at Clinton in British Columbia in that year. and in the reply, the respondent also stated, inter alia, that: (a) the amount of capital cost allowance deductible by the Appellant for 1967 under the provisions of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section 11 of the said Act has been properly determined in accordance with the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of Income Tax Regulation 1700, because the property in respect of which capital cost allowance was claimed was used for the purpose of gaining income from farming for only part of the Appellant’s 1967 fiscal year. ...