Search - 辐射监测仪 校准

Windsor, a chartered accountant with the firm of McDonald Currie & Company, who were the respondent’s auditors in 1951 and prepared its income tax return for that year, said that Mr. ... And Section 4 provides: ‘ 4. Subject to the other provisions of this Part, income for a taxation year from a business or property is the profit therefrom for the year. ’ ’ It is emphasized that the taxpayer’s income for any taxation year is his income ‘‘for the year’’ and when that comes from a business, his income for the year is the profit from his business ‘‘for the year’’. ... George Thompson & Co., Ltd. (1927), 13 T.C. 83, and II. & G. Kinemas, Ltd. v. ...

In 1959 Johnson Walton Companies merged with Reid, Shaw & McNaught, insurance brokers, and the appellant has since continued as a partner of that firm. ... Estates, was to finance each of other companies called * ‘ little companies ’ ’ to build an apartment block or commercial building in Vancouver, and the business was carried out as follows: Whitelaw would select a property suitable for building and if approved by the directors of Welfar, a little company would be formed to purchase the property and to build thereon an apartment block or commercial building. ... M.N.R., 25 Tax A.B.C. 234; Osler, Hammon & Nanton Ltd. v. M.N.R., [1961] C.T.C. 462; [1963] C.T.C. 164. ...

It goes on to say that the statutory provisions upon which the appellant relies read thus: “11. (1) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a), (b) and (h) of subsection (1) of section 12, the following amounts may be deducted in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year (j) an amount paid by the taxpayer in the year pursuant to a decree, order or judgment of competent tribunal in an action or proceeding for divorce or judicial separation or pursuant to a written separation agreement as alimony or other allowance payable on a periodic basis for the maintenance of the recipient thereof, children of the marriage, or both the recipient and children of the marriage, if he is living apart from the spouse or former spouse to whom he is required to make the payment, 11 In his reply the respondent alleges: He admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 9, 6 and 7 of Part A of the notice of appeal; he denies the allegations contained in paragraph 2, except where hereinafter expressly admitted; he admits that the appellant is and has been at all times relevant herein living separate from his wife Doris Pitman and that they entered into the agreement quoted in paragraph 2 of Part A in the notice of appeal; he denies the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Part B of the notice of appeal, except where hereinafter expressly admitted; he admits that the agreement alleged in paragraph 2 of said Part B of the notice of appeal was in writing; the respondent intends to rely upon the following statutory provisions: “ (6) The two payments made by the appellant to his wife in the 1949 taxation year in the total amount of $11,598.19 do not constitute a proper deduction from income since they merely represent the balance with interest of the amount of $21,000.00 payable by the appellant pursuant to the agreement of 9th October, 1929, between himself and his wife, which amount of $21,000.00 does not constitute alimony or an allowance for maintenance as provided for by the provisions of para- graph (j) of subsection (1) of section 11 of the Income Tax Act. (7) On the contrary, according to the terms of the said agreement, the said payment of $21,000.00 is a capital payment in full settlement of all claims whether alimentary or otherwise, present or future, which appellant’s wife, Doris Pitman, and their children might have had against him or his estate. (8) The spreading of the payment of the said capital amount of $21,000.00 over a pre-determined period of years, as set forth in the said agreement, does not constitute the periodic basis contemplated by paragraph (j) of subsection (1) of section 11 of the Income Tax Act for payments of an alimentary nature. (9) The two amounts totalling $11,598.19 disallowed as a deduction from income in the 1949 taxation year, being the final instalments with interest of the said payment of $21,000.00, partake of the nature of the said amount and constitute a capital payment in that year. (10) The appellant’s income for the taxation year 1949 has been properly assessed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act.” ... Counsel for respondent submitted that in 1949 the Income Taz Act provided by Section 6, paragraph (d), that there should be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year: ‘ ‘ Alimony— (d) amounts received by the taxpayer in the year pursuant to a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal in an action or proceeding for divorce or judicial separation or pursuant to a written separation agreement as alimony or other allowance payable on a periodic basis for the maintenance of the recipient thereof, children of the marriage, or both the recipient and children of the marriage, if the recipient is living apart from the spouse or former spouse required to make the payments. ’ 9 Counsel also observed that by paragraph (j) of subsection (1) of Section 11 provision was made whereby in computing the income of taxpayer for a taxation year he could deduct: ‘ ‘ Alimony— (j) an amount paid by the taxpayer in the year pursuant to a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal in an action or proceeding for a divorce or judicial separation or pursuant to a written separation agreement as alimony or other allowance payable on a periodic basis for the maintenance of the recipient thereof, children of the marriage, or both the recipient and children of the marriage, if he is living apart from the spouse or former spouse to whom he is required to make the payment. ’ ’ He added that the question to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the amount paid in 1949 by the appellant to his wife pursuant to the agreement dated October 9, 1929, was an amount paid by him in accordance with a written separation agreement as alimony or other allowance payable on a periodic basis for the maintenance of Doris Pitman and the children of the marriage. ... He added that the use of the word ‘ 4 allowance ” is to cover the case of a separation agreement, as “alimony” is not apt to describe the allowance made to a wife under a separation agreement. ...

Particulars of the computation of the aggregate of the amounts by which the respondent’s taxes under Part I of the Income Tax Act would have been increased in the years 1952 to 1956 both inclusive, if one-fifth of $39,068.13 (i.e. $7,813.62) had been included in computing respondent’s income for each of the said years. 1952 Taxable income declared nil Add: 14 of $39,068.13 $ 7,813.63 Revised taxable income 7,813.63 Tax thereon at 22% (1952 rate) $ 1,719.00 Less: Tax paid in 1952 nil Increase in tax for year..- $ 1,719.00 1953 Taxable income declared (loss) $ 22.90 Add: 14 of $39,068.13 7,813.63 Revised taxable income $ 7,790.73 Tax thereon at 20% (1953 rate)-..$ 1,558.15 Less: Tax paid in 1953 nil Increase in tax for year $ 1,558.15 1954 Taxable income declared (loss) $ 4,394.87 Add: 14 of $39,068.13 7,813.63 Revised taxable income $ 3,418.76 Tax thereon at 20% (1954 rate) $ 683.75 Less: Tax paid in 1954 nil Increase in tax for year$ 683.75 1955 Taxable income declared $ 6,808.42 Add: 14 of $39,068.13 7,813.63 Revised taxable income $14,622.04 Tax thereon at 20% (1955 rate) $ 2,924.41 Less: Tax paid in 1955 478.13 Increase in tax for year $ 2,446.28 1956 Taxable income declared $ 1.696.91 Add: 14 of $89,068.13 7,813.63 Revised taxable income $ 9,510.53 Tax thereon at 20% (1956 rate) $ 1,902.11 Less: Tax paid in 1956 339.38 Increase in tax for year $ 1,562.73 Aggregate of the total increase for the five years $ 7,969.91” The respondent does not contest the accuracy of the figures set out in the above particulars but takes exception to the method of computation used by the appellant. According to the respondent, its net tax owing, instead of being $9,778.68 as claimed by the appellant, amounts to $6,255.55, computed as follows: “Total additional amount of tax 1952-6 inclusive.. §$ 7,969.91 YEAR 1957 Operating income declared $16,379.74 Tax 20% $ 3,275.95 $ 3,275.95 TOTAL TAX $11,245.86 Tax allowance re: Province of Ontario—9% of $55,447 87 4,990.31 Net tax for year 1957 $ 6,255.55” It will be seen from the foregoing that the amount in dispute is the sum of $3,516.13, which is the difference between the respondent’s tax payable for the year, as assessed by the Minister and amounting to $9,771.68, and the respondent’s estimate thereof amounting to $6,255.55. ... It so happens that with respect to the year 1953-54 the rate under Section 39 was the same in 1957 as it was then, namely, 20 %— but this is purely accidental and occurred because the amount of the appellant’s taxable income did not exceed $20,000. ...

Unincorporated, unregistered and unknown, the so-called ‘ Nadka Services’’ are devoid of all legal existence and, if I may slip into journalistic parlance, utterly fail to serve even as a mini-screen for Mrs. ... Murphy’s office services and administration ’ ’. Most of this repetitious information appears in Exhibit 2, a letter of April 30, 1963. ...

Receiver General of New Brunswick [1892] A.C. 487 at 441: " " The Supreme Court of Canada had previously ruled, in Reg. v. ... With every respect to the Courts by which they were decided, their Lordships cannot help thinking that in both cases the Judges have not sufficiently kept distinct the two prerogatives which formed separate grounds of decision in In re Henley & Co. (1878) 9 Ch. ...

In my view, the intention of this sub-section is to exempt from certain schedules a particular type of company, namely a corporation or joint stock company whose profits in the taxation year do not exceed $5,000 ‘‘before providing for any payments to shareholders by way of salary, interest, dividends or otherwise ‘ The meaning of the section is, in my view, quite clear and unambiguous, and inasmuch as it has admitted that after adding to the net profits of $4,198.38, as shown on the appellant’s return, and as accepted by the Department, the sum of $2,216.85, being the salary and commission paid to the said R. ... He must show that every constituent element necessary to the exemption is present in his ease, and that every condition required by the exempting section has been complied with. ‘ ‘ Reference may also be made to Trapp v. ...

At maturity of the coupons the appellant was the bearer of the coupons and in a position to present and surrender them to an agent of Canada, hence the coupons represented sums ‘ ‘ receivable... as interest’’ in the hands of the appellant and are to be included in income under Section 6(1) (b).; [M.N.R. v. ... The costs wall be payable by the appellant to the respondent...* * *, * * The reasons. of September. 23. 1970 are amended as follows: 1. ... By virtue of this agreement, he accepted, as a withdrawal indemnity in settlement of all the rights which he had or might have in the partnership, the sum of $35,900, payable in the amount of $19,900 by certain ms I whieh he received from the following contracts: Sogefors — $13,900 Métro — 3,000. ...

Ltd. “... including, reads article II, the profits which may be realized by the joint venture...” ... Ltd. and Fred Mannix & Company ‘‘... for the better procurement of the monies required for the performance of the said work... under the Mannix interest in the prime agreements,’’ i.e., those of November 12 and 23, same year. ... Early in September, 1950, appellant sold its interest to Fred Mannix & Co. ...

Connelly & Dawson Dawson City, Yukon. Re sale of Callison Services Ltd. fixed wing flying business. ... That Connelly & Dawson agree to pay 6% interest on all money owing by them instead of 3%. ... Therefore, I agree with the finding of the Tariff Board that these rock bolts were ‘ ‘ essentially structural devices d'T no safety devices”. ...