Search - 阿里拍卖 司法拍卖

These concerns arose from a series of events, including (a) his inability to cause the $20,000 cheque to be sent to Revenue Canada; (b) his failure to supply accurate statements showing the financial condition of the Corporation; (c) the fact that without Board authorization Jardine hired his wife as an employee of the Corporation; (d) his authorization to pay the sum of approximately $10,000 to Green, Haley & Pye for a restructuring report without receiving Board authorization; (e) his alleged verbal abuse of certain production employees of the Corporation; (f) his general habit of running the Corporation, making decisions and enforcing certain procedures without alerting the Board; and (g) his rosy projections of increased numbers of tourist buses and increased sales to customers, including a major customer, Jean Depot, which projections did not materialize. ...

Therefore, the maximum amount that could be assessed against the Appellant was $20,912 calculated as follows: Amount assessed under section 160 $52,662.30 Estimated value of the Appellant's shares according to evidence between $58,000 to $69,000 say    $63,500.00 One-half thereof to Mrs. ...

In 1994- according to Records of Employment – Exhibits R-4 and R-5- she worked 14 weeks for Doreen McMillan and 8 and 2/3 weeks for Almey. ...

At page 87 of his text Construction of Statutes (2nd ed. 1983), Driedger fittingly summarizes the basic principles: “... the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament”. ...

David Pilkington, a chartered accountant and partner of Hudson & Company, Karon’s accountants, prepared a letter for Kondrat’s solicitor suggesting the shares of Karon in June 1985 "would be worth a value anywhere from $0 indicating the seismic data was worthless and the future earnings potential of the company is not very favourable to a value far exceeding the cost of the seismic data indicating that the seismic data is extremely valuable". ...

Counsel for the respondent contended that the application of subsection 56(2) of the Act is supported by the following facts: (a) the dividend payment was not the product of a bona fide business relationship” (judgment of Dickson, C.J.C. at page 35), but was conceived as part of a tax avoidance plan; (b) the dividend payment was, in effect, a rerouting of monies from New- mac, in which the appellant's wife had no claim or entitlement, that would otherwise have been payable to the appellant; (c) the declaration of a dividend, although normally the function of a director, in this case was the fruit of the appellant's recommendations to his wife; (d) the declaration of the dividend to the appellant's wife from Melru was merely a temporary device for the redirection of the dividend, as the money was immediately lent back to the appellant by his wife on non-commercial terms; and (e) ”... there was no legitimate purpose to the dividend distribution” (judgment of Dickson, C.J. at page 35), within the meaning of the majority judgment in McClurg. ...

You are willing to gift approximately $100,000 worth of shares (after a proposed split — see below) in the company to Lance and Kevin in order to obtain maximum tax benefits on a total family unit basis. ...

Apart altogether from what has been said concerning the existence of a trust, if superior judicial authority did not cling so tenaciously to the doctrine of the absolute distinction of identity between a corporation and its shareholders as propounded over 85 years ago by the House of Lords in Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd, [1897] AC 22, one might regard a single shareholder corporation like Enterprises in the light of its relationship to the appellant and conclude that in truth and substance what was attempted was to establish a trust under which the settlor, the trustee and the sole beneficiary are the same person, which is not permissible under the law of trusts. ...

Exhibit A-l contained a number of documents relative to the operation in question and Exhibit A-2 was a summary of the profit and loss situation for M & K Stables from 1975 to 1992. ...

.: — It was agreed at the commencement of the trial that the evidence given in one would be considered in the other, where applicable. ...