le seul montant – English Translation – Keybot Dictionary

Spacer TTN Translation Network TTN TTN Login Deutsch Français Spacer Help
Source Languages Target Languages
Keybot      29 Results   9 Domains
  www.winonesolar.com  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Si vous travaillez avec des organisations apparentées, le seul montant accepté lors du décompte sera celui mentionné dans le budget au moment de la demande.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine screenflanders.be as primary domain
In the case of collaborations with affiliated organisations, only the costs quoted in the budget submitted with the application will be accepted.
  www.taixingde.com  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Le montage peut être effectué sur le seul montant ou en présence de montants à distance rapprochée (double partie latérale). Matériel plastique renforcé en fibres.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine rosss.it as primary domain
The installation can be made either on single upright or on uprights close together (double side). Fiber-reinforced plastic material.
  www.ei-ie.org  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Le 4 septembre, le Ministre de l'Education, Mutula Kilonzo, a déclaré que les 300 pour cent d'augmentation demandés par les enseignant(e)s étaient excessifs. Mutula a dit que le seul montant qu'ils pouvaient offrir devait correspondre au budget.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine ei-ie.org as primary domain
On 4 September, Education Minister Mutula Kilonzo stated that the 300 per cent salary increase demanded by the teachers is unreasonable. Mutula said the only money they can offer is that which is in line with the budget. However, he said he is open to dialogue with the education unions to come up with an appropriate amount to offer.
  4 Hits www.cra-arc.gc.ca  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Le programme de la RGAP vérifie les options d'achat de titres déclarées en tant qu'avantages autres qu'en espèces imposables à la case 38 (Options d'achat de titres) et à la case 14 (Revenu d'emploi) sur le feuillet T4 parce qu'il s'agit d'un avantage qui ouvre droit à pension mais qui n'est pas assurable. Si ce genre d'avantage constitue le seul montant déclaré sur un feuillet T4, inscrivez un « X » à la case 28 (Exemption) à AE.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine cra-arc.gc.ca as primary domain
The PIER program checks security options reported as a non-cash taxable benefit in box 38 (Security options) and box 14 (Employment income) on T4 slips because such a benefit is pensionable but not insurable. If this type of benefit is the only amount reported on a T4 slip, enter an "X" in box 28 (Exempt) under EI. Do not place an "X" in the CPP exempt box 28. This benefit is pensionable and CPP contributions are required.
  www.cleo.on.ca  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Cette règle a la conséquence suivante : si ce même conjoint est toujours propriétaire du foyer à la date de la séparation, ses biens familiaux nets comprendront la valeur totale du foyer, plutôt que le seul montant de la modification de sa valeur pendant le mariage.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine cleo.on.ca as primary domain
When calculating a spouse's NFP, the value of his or her property on the date of marriage does not include any home that is a matrimonial home on the date of separation. This means if the same spouse still owns the home on the date of separation, his or her NFP will include the home's entire value, not just its change in value during the marriage. This can have a big effect on how much the equalization payment will be, or who must pay it.
  9 Hits scc.lexum.org  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Toutefois, en ce qui concerne la quatrième période, qui part du 21 juin 1966, et avant l’établissement, dans la licence finale délivrée le 3 février 1967, de la redevance à payer à compter de cette date-là, les défenderesses ont effectué des ventes importantes et je ne puis accepter la prétention de leur avocat que le seul montant susceptible d’être réclamé pour dommages découlant de ces ventes est la redevance finalement fixée le 3 février 1967.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain
the damages would be merely nominal during this period. With respect to the fourth period following June 21, 1966, however, and before the final licence on February 3, 1967, established the royalty payable subsequent to that date, substantial sales were made by defendants and I cannot accept the contention of defendants counsel that the only amount which could be claimed as damages resulting from these sales was the same royalty which was eventually fixed on February 3, 1967. To do so would be equivalent to saying that although it had been settled that the Commissioner was wrong in making the royalty take effect retroactively to June 21, 1966, the Court must nevertheless award damages in exactly the same amount as if this decision of the Commissioner had been correct. I do not so find and I believe therefore that the question of damages during this period remains open, and while one of the options would be to allow damages in the same amount as if the royalty had taken effect June 21, 1966, this need not necessarily be the basis for the damages to be allowed.
  9 Hits csc.lexum.org  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Toutefois, en ce qui concerne la quatrième période, qui part du 21 juin 1966, et avant l’établissement, dans la licence finale délivrée le 3 février 1967, de la redevance à payer à compter de cette date-là, les défenderesses ont effectué des ventes importantes et je ne puis accepter la prétention de leur avocat que le seul montant susceptible d’être réclamé pour dommages découlant de ces ventes est la redevance finalement fixée le 3 février 1967.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain
the damages would be merely nominal during this period. With respect to the fourth period following June 21, 1966, however, and before the final licence on February 3, 1967, established the royalty payable subsequent to that date, substantial sales were made by defendants and I cannot accept the contention of defendants counsel that the only amount which could be claimed as damages resulting from these sales was the same royalty which was eventually fixed on February 3, 1967. To do so would be equivalent to saying that although it had been settled that the Commissioner was wrong in making the royalty take effect retroactively to June 21, 1966, the Court must nevertheless award damages in exactly the same amount as if this decision of the Commissioner had been correct. I do not so find and I believe therefore that the question of damages during this period remains open, and while one of the options would be to allow damages in the same amount as if the royalty had taken effect June 21, 1966, this need not necessarily be the basis for the damages to be allowed.