Search - 辐射监测仪 校准

Bieleny therefore gave to the appellant a first mortgage on the identical terms that he was to have had from the mortgage company, that is, a first mortgage in the face amount of $27,000 being the loan of $20,000 plus a premium of $7,000 at 7 % interest repayable in monthly instalments. ...

The statutory rule outlined in Section 20(6) of the Income Tax Act quoted above applies only ‘ where an amount can reasonably be regarded as being in part consideration for disposition of depreciable property of a taxpayer of a prescribed class and as being in part consideration for something else’’. ...

Hawkins & Gratton, Barristers and Solicitors, a copy of which direction is attached hereto as Schedule C. 6. ...

Aux termes de l’article 139(1) (e), le mot ‘ entreprise”, dans ce statut, ‘‘comprend une profession”, et selon l’article 139(1) (ab), le mot ‘‘charge’’ signifie “le poste d’un particulier lui donnant droit à un traitement ou rémunération déterminée ou constatable’’ et l’expression “fonctionnaire” signifie ‘‘une personne détenant une telle charge’’. ...

This actual valuation was established on the basis of the valuation by three experts, one of whom, Mr Madison H Haythe, vice-president of the well-known investment firm of Morgan Stanley & Co, testified in Court. ...

I see no reason for so limiting the scope of the words in section 24, particularly the words authorizing the Minister at any time to “... assess, re-assess, or make additional assessments upon any persons... for duties, interest and penalties”. ...

The owners insisted on selling the whole of their properties, or none at all. 11 In order of date, the deeds of purchase, and the agreed sale prices, were as follows: Mary St Louis-- April 5, 1965-- $165,750 LaPorte-- May 20, 1965-- $ 35,000 James St Louis-- June 1, 1965-- $150,000 12 The transactions were ultimately paid in cash, except in respect of the James St Louis farm. ...

It is, as applied to this case, “... his income for the year from all duties performed by him in Canada...”. 14 As has been said over and over again, the statute does not define “income”. ...

As regards the appellant's appeal, counsel for the appellant said he agreed there had been an appropriation of funds in the amount of $7,000 but argued that there was no appropriation of funds in the amount of $35,000 because the issue of capital stock to the appellant was a mistake. 19 Counsel for the appellant referred to Lord, Sasseville and Bruneau, Les principes de l'imposition au Canada, Wilson & Lafleur, 10th ed., and in particular to paragraph 4.3.1.5, pp. 81 and 82, titled [TRANSLATION] “False statement or omission made knowingly”: [TRANSLATION] Thus, in Thibault v. ...

Scott Davidson. 13 The Respondent called one witness, an evaluation expert — Mr. ...