Search - considered

As to paragraph 1(a) of Part XIII, Schedule III, the defendant submitted that a broad construction should be put on it and that the important words employed were “machinery and apparatus” and “manufacture or production”; that the fact that the defendant could have used something else was irrelevant; that it was too narrow an interpretation to consider the words in the subsection “directly in the manufacture or production of goods” in relation to the time sequence; that instead what should be considered were the things that contributed to the end result, that is the manufacture or production of lumber; that the word “directly” should not be used in the sense of “to the exclusion of”; and that what should be considered was the saw mill factory operation as a whole, from which it should be concluded that without such a type of refuse burner to dispose of waste such a factory could not operate at any of the various stages of manufacture, culminating in the production of lumber. ...

They considered that it was “too expensive for a manufacturer to be downtown”. ... Learned counsel for the respondent conceded that his position would be weak indeed if the only intention to be considered was the intention of Aimco. ...

At this stage, before dealing further with the facts, I refer to certain decisions which have considered subsection 83(5): MNR v The Mac- Lean Mining Company Limited, [1970] S.C.R. 877; [1970] CTC 264; 70 DTC 6199, which reversed [1969] CTC 257; 69 DTC 5185; Marbridge Mines Limited v MNR, [1971] CTC 442; 71 DTC 5231 (Exch); Bermah Mines Limited v MNR, 41 Tax ABC 359; 66 DTC 519. ... It is true that in 1960 there was some indication of ore between East Jersey and Jersey and the possibility of one pit was considered. ...

In view of the foregoing, the Appellant, as at April 30, 1968, considered its investment in shares and loan to Experiment worthless, and wrote this investment off against other income earned in that year. 12. ... As the parties were agreed, and respondent accepted the amount of $472.75 as an allowable deduction, the appeal is allowed in part only on that item, and in toto for the other question considered. ...

It should be observed at this point that, all things considered, my approach to the solution of this appeal is going to be to regard Information Bulletin No 41 summarized above as the great mass of the iceberg referred to earlier of which the tip above the water is Article X of the Schedule to the Canada-New Zealand Income Tax Agreement. ... While the aforesaid Article X of the Schedule to the Canada-New Zealand Income Tax Agreement, quoted earlier, is couched in plain, simple language which does not appear to present any great problem of interpretation, it is not my intention to suggest what its correct interpretation should be for the purpose of disposing of this appeal on a peremptory basis because there is, obviously, a further essential matter to be considered which has been emphasized throughout these reasons, namely, the overt act of the Minister’s Deputy Minister in issuing Information Bulletin No 41 dated May 21, 1968 (published in the Canada Gazette of Saturday, June 1, 1968) on which the appellant definitely acted thereby changing his position and leaving himself vulnerable to the assessments imposed by the Minister under said Article X now under appeal by continuing to teach in Canada after August 26, 1970, the expiration date of his 24-month period computed from August 26, 1968, the day of his arrival in Canada. ...

Nor had any prospective tenants for such a development been approached to sign letters of intention, or, if they had, no such documentary evidence was disclosed in support of Mr Zekelman’s statement that the partners had considered erecting a shopping centre on the Laporte property. ... Sydney Morris, the first of the two accountants to testify before the Board, and who appeared to be a completely reliable witness with a thorough grasp of the problem before him, gave evidence in considerable detail in an effort to establish what he considered to have been the value of the goodwill in question, basing his conclusions on what he recognized as good and acceptable accounting practices and principles. ...

Paragraph (j) of Section 3(1) was, however, taken almost verbatim from several similar statutes dating at least back to the United Kingdom Finance Act, 1894* [2] and, while there have been no decisions that bear on the question as to the application of Section 3 (1) (j) in the present circumstances, there have been: many decisions that would have to be considered if the problem arose under one of the other provisions that read in almost the same words as paragraph (j). ... AS indicated, I have considered the matter on the assumption that the Ontario Insurance Act is applicable and on the basis that the deceased’s estate was nominated as beneficiary under the Group Policy. ...

Respondent seeks a very broad interpretation which would include in the exemption all property acquired by the investment of savings from income earned in Canada, such savings being considered by respondent as ‘‘incident to residence in Canada”. ... Appellant’s counsel contended that in such a hypothetical case, a nominal and reasonable amount of the account would have been considered as tax- free and the balance taxed, and he argued that the decision to include one bank account in taxed assets and not to include the other was merely a reasonable exercise of discretion, both accounts containing approximately the same amounts, and that deceased required only one account as “incident to residence in Canada’^. ...

At page 459 the Master of the Rolls completed his remarks on the question of situs when he said: I do not refer to the income tax cases, or other tax cases, which, I think, must be considered closely in relation to the terms of the statute upon which the circumstances arose for the decision. ... It seems to me that notwithstanding this circumstance the policy has been “localized” here when all the relevant facts are considered along with Section 149 of the Insurance Act. ...

The appellant considered that he did not possess the qualifications and knowledge to reconcile the figures in his farm account book with those required to be included in the income tax returns. He considered that to be the job of an accountant, not a farmer. He, therefore, employed an accountant for that purpose. ...