Search - consideration

While I do not regard the judgment in the Carling Export Brewery case as affording an exhaustive interpretation of the exempting provision which was under consideration, the case appears to me to lend support for the view that the fact (if it were established to be the fact) that following their sale the humidifiers here in question were used in the manufacture or production of furnaces would not by itself be sufficient to entitle the defendants to exemption and that in a case of this kind where the defendants have parted with both possession and title to the humidifiers without paying the tax, which under the statute becomes payable when the property passes or when the goods are delivered to the purchaser whichever is earlier, the least that is required of them in seeking the benefit of the exemption provided by Section 32(1) is that they establish that the humidifiers were sold under contractual arrangements requiring the purchaser to use them exclusively in the manufacture or production of the exempted building materials that is to say furnaces for the heating of buildings, and that they, the defendants, saw to it that the humidifiers were so used. ...

“As under section 41(1) the tax credit may be claimed only for the tax paid to the United States on income from sources therein and subject to tax in Canada, i.e. on income computed by applying the provisions of our own income tax legislation regarding the computation of income, it follows that where income tax is required to be paid to the United States under the income tax legislation of that country on an amount of money or income which is not subject to tax in Canada under our own income tax legislation (as for instance where the difference between gross income and net income is taxed in the United States), such amount of money cannot be taken into consideration for the determination of the tax credit that may be claimed under either paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of section 41(1).”’ ...

After consideration of the facts of ‘this case in their totality, I find without hesitation that the respondent for himself as well as for his associates devised and carried out a very effective scheme for profit making, that the mortgages and agreement of sale which were purchased at a discount were operations of business in carrying out the scheme and that the profits realized by him from the transactions constituted gains made in operations of business in carrying out a scheme for profit making and as such were subject to income tax under Sections 3 and 4 of the applicable Act. ...

A-81), and in consideration of the sum paid released and quit claimed to Her Majesty the expropriated shares with a general release to Her Majesty and Servants for all acts pursuant to the Statute of August 1, 1961. ...

A point that seems to have been precisely similar to that under consideration appears to have been raised in the Burns Estate case but was not decided. ...

Cette considération était nécessaire à l’analyse de plusieurs dispositions du Code Civil que je devais faire pour motiver les conclusions juridiques essentielles à la solution du présent litige. ... Après ces considérations, je me propose de citer des passages des auteurs modernes qui ont commenté le Code Napoléon aux dispositions régissant la communauté conjugale. ...

The title to the gas and electric light fittings is, as it seems to me, to be determined by the same considerations, which lead necessarily, I think, to the conclusion that, when, affixed as they were, they became part of the land and passed by the conveyance of it to the respondents. ...

The right of respondent to be reimbursed these moneys, which it paid to appellant, involves the consideration of two questions: (i) Whether, under the general law, there is, in like circumstances, a right to recover moneys paid, and, in the affirmative, (ii) Whether this right to recover, under the general law, is barred, in the present instance, by any of the statutory provisions of the Excise Tax Act. ...

In addition, there are other cases involving consideration of the decision in which the Income Tax Appeal Board dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal and he brought an appeal from its decision to this Court. ...

With these considerations in mind, I proceed to consider the facts applicable to each of the years under review. ...