Search - 辐射监测仪 校准

There being power in the Dominion Parliament to levy the tax if they thought fit, their Lordships are therefore of opinion that it has levied income tax without reference to the question of Provincial wrongdoing. ’ ’ The present problem is, however, not quite the same, since the appellant’s business itself is not shown to have been an illegal one, and the taxpayer shows the illegality of what it has done not in the course of claiming that the statute does not apply but in the course of asserting a claim for a deduction in computing the income therefrom which is subject to the tax. ... The question is never more than one of the words used. ’ ’ In C.I.R. v. ... Thomas & Co. 120.00 9 Dec. 19, 1945 429 K. J. Liphardt 346.04 9 Jan. 4, 1946 429 K. ...

But, as will presently be seen, this, in the opinion of their Lordships, is not the case. ’ ’ Earlier, at page 485, he had said: “It was always held in Great Britain, under s. 38, sub-s. 1(9), of the Inland Revenue Act, 1881, amended as above but with the word ‘voluntary’ remaining before the word ‘disposition’, that an ante-nuptial settlement of the second class above alluded to, not being in law a voluntary settlement, did not fall within the second limb of the section. ... On reading sec. 11, sub-s. 1, it seems clear that the legislature in using the word ‘gift’ in that section contemplated cases where the donee enter into a covenant such as this. ’ 9 In A. ... Rowlatt, J., said at page 435:_ ‘ ‘ The transaction here was induced of course by family considerations, but that does not conclude the matter. ...

The Attorney-General (1869), L.R. 4 H.L. 100, where Lord Cairns made the following statement (p. 122): “... ... Smith case, [1892] A.C. 150, 154: ‘ ‘... And when I say ‘what is intended to be taxed,’ I mean what is the intention of the Act as expressed in its provisions, because in a taxing Act it is impossible, I believe, to assume any intention, any governing purpose in the Act, to do more than take such tax as the statute imposes. ... The Court cannot assume the words ‘‘ borrowed money to repay previously borrowed money to be used for a specified purpose”? ...

The parties to the appeal have expressly agreed that the aforesaid “options” were ‘‘granted’’ for “legitimate business reasons ’ ’. ... Similarly, the respondent’s position was that a disposition was made for ‘‘ partial consideration” within paragraph (g) if, on the evidence, the value of the ‘‘consideration’’ in the aforesaid sense was less than the value of the property disposed of even if the disposition was the subject of an arm’s length contract. ... I should add that, while the issues upon which I have decided the appeal as I have formulated them differ somewhat from the issues formulated in the ‘‘ Agreed Statement of Facts’’ that was filed as Exhibit 1, the issues as I have formulated them were accepted by counsel for both parties as having been raised by the appeal and submissions were made on both sides with regard thereto. ...

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. ... 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’’. ... He referred to the definition of "‘business'' in Section 127(1) (e) of the Act which provides: • • 127. (1) In this Act, (e) ‘business’ includes a profession, calling, trade, manufacture or undertaking of any kind whatsoever and includes an adventure or concern in the nature of trade but does not include an office or employment;”? ...

He was also a partner in the legal firm of Smart & Biggar, of Ottawa. ... " " The Assignor, as of October 1st, 1928, with the consent of the Assignee and the Party of the Third Part, assumes all the assets and liabilities of the New York Office of Fetherstonhaugh & Co., and after such date the profits and assets of the New York Office shall belong solely to him. ... The only exception to the practice described in paragraph 18 arose from an advance made by Smart to Fetherstonhaugh, on the conclusion of the settlement, of $ on account of Fetherstonhaugh’s share of future profits; Smart paid this by a cheque on the account of Smart & Biggar; he recouped himself, and repaid Smart & Biggar, at first by depositing in Smart & Biggar’s account the whole of any profits from the Ottawa office of Fetherstonhaugh & Co., and paying no part to F. ...

Minister of National Revenue, [1957] CTC 146, 57 DTC 1098 / THORSON, P. ... The appellant is the president and principal shareholder of Alliance Advertising & Applied Arts, Inc., a Quebec corporation. ... It is the one thing which distinguishes an old established business from a new business at its first start. ‘ ‘ That the goodwill of a business is an item of property that can be the subject of sale is beyond dispute: vide Wedderburn v. ...

Then followed directions to deliver to his wife for her sole use and benefit his household furniture, etc., and to convey to her for her sole use and benefit the residence which he occupied in the City of Toronto, and Clause IH(g) was as follows: “ (g) Upon the decease of my wife Isabella Arlow to take all steps necessary to wind up my estate and to pay and/or convey the assets then remaining to the Hospital for Sick Children which conducts a hospital in the said City of Toronto. ’ ’ On August 12, 1952, the executors filed Succession Duty Returns as follows: 1. ... In the final analysis, it was determined that the whole Estate, apart from the gifts to charities made in the deceased’s lifetime, was a succession to the widow. ’ ’ The method by which the duty claimed was calculated was set out in four statements attached to the Notice of Assessments. ... Henley (1819), 7 Price 241, Lord Chief Baron Richards in the Exchequer Chamber said at page 253: ‘ ‘ The legacy duty is a charge upon the legacy, not upon the estate; but where the legacy is given free of duty, it is an increase of the legacy itself, and ought therefore to be paid out of the same fund.” ...

The appellant says that the plans were established on the advice of an auditor and that the intention was to make payments into the Pension Plan for current and past service of the brothers Lebovie, then to pay out the money to them and terminate that Plan, whereupon they would pay the money into the Deferred Profit Sharing Plan, of which they would be trustees, and as such trustees they would use the money to purchase preference shares of the company as an investment, which shares when redeemed would provide money for retirement benefits for themselves; and that, pursuant to that intention, the appellant established the Pension Plan by its By-law No. 5 (Exhibit 37) on December 28, 1964, and appointed the brothers as trustees of the Plan; that it applied to the respondent for registration of the Plan under Section 139(1) (ahh) of the Income Tax Act and it was so registered by the respondent on April 5, 1965, under that section; that the appellant also applied to the respondent for approval of a lump sum contribution of $195,244.20 to the Plan in respect of past service of the brothers pursuant to Section 76 of the Act and to a recommendation by a qualified actuary, and was advised by a letter from the respondent dated September 8, 1965 (Exhibit 28) that the actuary’s calculations had been confirmed and that payments made to liquidate the liability in that respect could be claimed as a ‘‘special payment” under Section 76; that, acting in reliance on the anticipated approval of the Plan and the lump sum past service contribution, the company had paid the following amounts into the Plan: (a) Current service contributions: December 29, 1964 $ 3,000 March 3, 1965 $ 3,000 (b) Past service contributions: February 26, 1965 $ 60,000 March 2, 1965 $135,244.20 and in filing its income tax returns it claimed deductions on account of the said payments. ... The minutes (Exhibit 60) state that resolutions were passed (a) reviving the Pension Plan, (b) redeeming at par 15,524 preference shares issued in the name of the trustees of the Deferred Profit Sharing Plan, and (c) directing the trustees of the Deferred Profit Sharing Plan to refund to Wolf Lebovic $96,699.31 and to Joseph Lebovie $100,344.89 by distribution of the following assets to them pro rata: To Joseph Lebovic — cheque $ 79,443.79 — 350 shares Alcan 10,151.10 — 1,000 shares Revenue Properties 10,750.00 $100,344.89 To Wolf Lebovic — cheque $ 75,798.22 — 350 shares Alcan 10,151.10 — 1,000 shares Revenue Properties 10,750.00 $ 96,699.31 and to transfer to the brothers the ownership of certificates of the policy issued by Industrial Life Insurance Company on their lives. ... Anson-Cartwright, a chartered accountant and partner in Price Waterhouse & Co., was called as an expert witness by the respondent. ...

In the result, the reassessment showed taxable income as follows: 1946 $ 2,554.08 1947 6,612.02 1948 10,061.99 1949 9,144.86 1950 9,183.39 $37,556.34 Counsel for the appellant did not attempt to challenge directly the computation made in the Net Worth Statement. ... The summary on page 1 shows gross income for the five years of $63,739.30, a net income of $16,803.47, and taxable income as follows: 1946 nil 1947 $ 2,244.12 1948 2,779.19 1949 2,215.51 1950 nil $ 7,231.82 It will be seen, therefore, that the taxable income computed by the respondent is over $30,200.00 in excess of that computed by Mr. ... Battrum; but a 6 spot ’ ’ check of some of the returns shows items of income then reported which are not contained in the auditor’s statement. ...