Search - considered

Then as section 4 of the Customs Tariff requires that the duties are to be levied when the goods are imported into Canada, and as under section 31 those duties in a case like the present where a vessel touches at a port of entry other than her port of destination, are to be paid at the latter port, by reading these two sections together we find it to be the intention of the legislature that the port at which the duties are to be paid is to be considered the place of importation, thus making it plain that the words of section 150 of the Customs Act "come within the limits of the port at which they ought to be reported" means "reported" for the purpose of levying the duties thereon. ... These American authorities are of course not of direct application in the construction of our Canadian statutes, but they serve to shew what eminent judges and courts have considered to be the proper and primary signification of the terms "imported" and "importation" and are therefore of force when we find the statutes which we have to deal with leading us to the same interpretation. ... The collector was then perfectly right when in the performance of what he properly considered to be his duty he cancelled the entry. ...

The grounds for denying any depreciation on the said machinery and equipment to the appellant were very frankly and fairly stated in the decision, as follows: The Honourable the Minister of National Revenue, having duly considered the facts as set forth in the Notice of Appeal and matters thereto relating hereby affirms the said assessment on the ground that while the company was incorporated and commenced operations during the year 1932 there was no actual change in ownership of the assets purchased or taken over from Pioneer Investment Company Limited by Home Service Company Limited (of which the taxpayer is a subsidiary) and set up in the books of the taxpayer a,t appreciated values; that in the exercise of the statutory discretion, a reasonable amount has been allowed for depreciation and that the assessment is properly levied under the provisions of the Income War Tax Act. ... The regulations referred to turned out to be merely directions given to local officers of the department for their general guidance and could not be considered as any general rule binding in any way on the Minister. ... The relevant parts of section 6 provide: In computing the amount of the profits or gains to be assessed, a deduction shall not be allowed in respect of * * * (b) any outlay, loss or replacement of capital or any payment on account of capital or any depreciation, depletion or obsolescence, except as otherwise provided in this Act; The only provision for an allowance for depreciation is contained in section 5 whereby income, for the purposes of the Act, shall be subject to the following exemptions and deductions:— (a) Such reasonable amount as the Minister, in his discretion, may allow for depreciation * * * In the present case the Minister has made an allowance of $255.08 (as to which no question arises) and has given his reasons for not allowing the balance of the appellant’s claim for depreciation as appears from the following extract from his decision:— The Honourable the Minister of National Revenue, having duly considered the facts as set forth in the Notice of Appeal and matters thereto relating hereby affirms the said assessment on the ground that while the company was incorporated and commenced operations during [Page 11] the year 1932 there was no actual change in ownership of the assets purchased or taken over from Pioneer Investment Company Limited by Home Service Company Limited (of which the taxpayer is a subsidiary) and set up in the books of the taxpayer at appreciated values; that in the exercise of the statutory discretion, a reasonable amount has been allowed for Depreciation and that the assessment is properly levied under the provisions of the Income War Tax Act. ...

Government Liquor Control Act present a difficulty to me in determining whether the expenditures in question here can properly be considered to be disbursements “wholly, exclusively and necessarily” incurred for the purpose of earning the income of the appellant company. ... As already mentioned, the practice followed by appellant is one adopted by the other brewers in Manitoba, and followed by all as something considered by them, not merely as advisable, but as obligatory, to increase, or at least sustain, the volume of their sales. Being considered thus in a commercial sense, I think it should be similarly held for the purposes of the Act. ...

Interest prior to date of assessment is payable under the Act (s. 55); s. 66 of the Act (considered in conjunction with other sections) does not leave it to the court’s discretion whether interest should be exacted; it is merely an enactment establishing the exclusive jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court to deal with the dispute. ... The particular section in question, sec. 11 (2), was considered by the Privy Council in Holden v. ... The suggested difficulty disappears, however, when section 66 is considered in conjunction with the sections dealing with the rights of a party assessed who objects to the amount at which he has been assessed for income tax or who considers that he is not liable to taxation. ...

On October 16, 1968, the Deputy Minister made a redetermination reaffirming the original classification on the following grounds: The imported electric motors are considered to be of a class or kind made in Canada and are, therefore, not eligible for entry under tariff item 44022-1. ... Can it be said, as the Board did, that because each motor was designed as a unit to form a single entity with the winch and controls, each imported motor was to be considered as a single entity with the winch to be driven by it? ... Within such a context, parts cannot properly be considered as included in items in which they are not mentioned. ...

On this question the Courts considered, among other matters, unsigned minutes of the Board of Directors, those of Bedford being dated April 7, 1965, and those of Gourmet, April 30, 1965. ... I fail to see how such payments can be considered as advances. They were more than fully covered by deposits because, in the end, there was a surplus in the current account. I also fail to see how any part of those sums could be considered as a debt due to the Bank when it took steps to realize its security, or at any other time. ...

The parties however, by an agreement made contemporaneously with the granting of the option to the Shell Company which recited that the companies considered that it was in their mutual interests to grant the option, agreed that in the event that Shell purchased any of the mineral rights, Minerals would accept $2 per acre as settlement for its interest in the rights so purchased. ... The learned judge rejected this contention since he considered that it was clear that after December 30, 1950, Minerals was entitled to the full royalty of 9 per cent, and Leaseholds to no part of it. He considered that the only reasonable interpretation to put upon that part of the Agreement of Settlement and Adjustments referred to was that Minerals thereby agreed to cancel that part of their contract of July 7, 1944, by the terms of which Leaseholds was bound to pay Minerals 1 per cent. more royalty than Imperial Oil would pay by the terms of the new agreement of December 30, 1950. ...

The matter was considered briefly by Cattanach J. and not at all by the Federal Court of Appeal, nor was it made an issue by the appellants on the appeal to this Court. ... The second ground taken by the Federal Court of Appeal was that on Buchanan’s evidence, “regardless of what led him to do so and whether it was regarded as a formality or not, he in fact signed it because he considered it appropriate to indicate by his signature thereto that he adopted the decision as his own”. ... The appellants also urged as a factor to be considered the pretext and breach of confidence used by the respondent in seeking to make his case against the Tribunal’s decision. ...

Government Liquor Control Act presents a difficulty to me in determining whether the expenditures in question here can properly be considered to be disbursements " " wholly, exclusively and necessarily’’ incurred for the purpose of earning the income of the appellant company. ... As already mentioned, the practice followed by appellant is one adopted by the other brewers in Manitoba, and followed by all as something considered by them, not merely as advisable, but as obligatory, to increase, or at least sustain, the volume of their sales. Being considered thus in a commercial sense, I think it should be similarly held for the purposes of the Act. ...

The grounds for denying any depreciation on the said machinery and equipment to the appellant were very frankly and fairly stated in the decision, as follows: The Honourable the Minister of National Revenue, having duly considered the facts as set forth in the Notice of Appeal and matters thereto relating hereby affirms the said assess- ment on the ground that while the company was incorporated and commenced operations during the year 1932 there was no actual change in ownership of the assets purchased or taken over from Pioneer Investment Company Limited by Home Service Company Limited (of which the taxpayer is a subsidiary) and set up in the books of the taxpayer at appreciated values; that in the exercise of the statutory discretion, a reasonable amount has been allowed for depreciation and that the assessment is properly levied under the provisions of the Income War Tax Act. ... The regulations referred to turned out to be merely directions given to local officers of the department for their general guidance and could not be considered as any general rule binding in any way on the Minister. ... In the present case the Minister has made an allowance of $255.08 (as to which no question arises) and has given his reasons for not allowing the balance of the appellant’s claim for depreciation as appears from the following extract from his decision:— The Honourable the Minister of National Revenue, having duly considered the facts as set forth in the Notice of Appeal and matters thereto relating hereby affirms the said assessment on the ground that while the company was incorporated and commenced operations during the year 1932 there was no actual change in ownership of the assets purchased or taken over from Pioneer Investment Company Limited by Home Service Company Limited (of which the taxpayer is a sub- sidiary) and set up in the books of the taxpayer at appreciated values; that in the exercise of the statutory discretion, a reasonable amount has been allowed for Depreciation and that the assesment is properly levied under the provisions of the Income War Tax Act. ...