Search - 包建铎违纪违法案件以案促改以案促治专题组织生活会 个人对照检查

Oil & Rubber Specialties Inc. v. M.N.R., docket 1999-38-CPP Date: 19990803 Docket: 1999-38-CPP BETWEEN: OIL & RUBBER SPECIALTIES INC., Appellant, and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, Respondent, and PAUL E. ... (iii) ownership of tools – what was provided to the Worker to perform his/her work, if anything? ... The Worker was held out by the Appellant to be an integral part of Oil & Rubber Specialties Inc. on the Worker's business cards and on the Appellant's organizational charts – all of which were entered as exhibits during the trial. ...

The said application reads as follows: IN RE the Application under Section 174 of the Income Tax Act Between: CAVERHILL, LEARMONT & CO LIMITED, Appellant, — and — THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, Respondent, — and — CANADIAN HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRIES, Third Party. ... B) THE TAXPAYERS THAT THE RESPONDENT SEEKS TO HAVE BOUND BY THE DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION ARE: — CAVERHILL, LEARMONT & CO LIMITED — CANADIAN HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRIES C) STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS: 1. ... Horticultural Industries having participated in a common transaction with Caverhill, Learmont & Co Limited, an appellant before this Board, the Board orders that Canadian Horticultural Industries be joined to the appeal of Caverhill, Learmont & Co Limited. ...

The said application reads as follows: IN RE the Application under Section 174 of the Income Tax Act Between: CAVERHILL, LEARMONT & CO LIMITED, Appellant, — and — THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, Respondent, — and — CANADIAN HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRIES, Third Party. ... B) THE TAXPAYERS THAT THE RESPONDENT SEEKS TO HAVE BOUND BY THE DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION ARE: — CAVERHILL, LEARMONT & CO LIMITED — CANADIAN HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRIES C) STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS: 1. ... Horticultural Industries having participated in a common transaction with Caverhill, Learmont & Co Limited, an appellant before this Board, the Board orders that Canadian Horticultural Industries be joined to the appeal of Caverhill, Learmont & Co Limited. ...

Appeal of R & L Investments Ltd. These are the matters in dispute regarding R & L Investments Ltd. ... The allocation of the $19,008.66 to taxation years is 1981 — $6,892.08, 1982 — $6,400.37 and 1983 — $5,716.21. ... The selling broker was Murdock & Maber Agencies Ltd. and it issued a receipt for $5,800 to R & L. ...

Rosenhek & Machlovitch, Suite 1700 — One Westmount Square, in the City of Westmount, Province of Quebec, on March 17th, 1977, or on such earlier or later date as may be agreed upon by the Purchaser and the Vendor. ... Findings The position of counsel for Mr Senecal is a rational one — that Senecal simply would not have accepted $50 for stock worth some $28,850 — and counsel made a convincing case for the acceptance of his position. ... Whatever else may arise from an examination of this matter, his claim to a capital gain is unfounded — the $26,450 at issue was not for the sale of his stock — it is salary income to Senecal in the year 1977. ...

Hollander & Sons Ltd. v. His Majesty the King, [1928-34] CTC 297, [1920-1940] DTC 275 MACLEAN P. ... The respondents, aS we have already observed, are not within s. 87 but, if they are a ‘producer’ or " manufacturer ‘ they are within s. 86.” ... If “transactions” means that the contract for the labour involved in dressing and dyeing the furs of customers was taxable as a sale against the dresser and dyer that would give to " " sale ” a meaning utterly foreign to the whole spirit of the Act; including even sec. 87(a), (b) and (d). ...

Esson & Sons Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1966] CTC 439, 66 DTC 5303 THURLOW, J. ... More recently in Alpine Drywall & Decorating Ltd. v. M.N.R., [1966] C.T.C. 359, Cattanach, J., while expressing doubt that there was any basic distinction between the case before him and that of B. ... Where, in the application of Section 39(4) a single person does not own sufficient shares to have control in the sense to which I have just referred, it becomes a question of fact as to whether any ‘group of persons’ does own such a number of shares. ’ ’ The definition of control as that arising from shareholding is supportd by the opinion of the House of Lords in British American Tobacco Co. ...

They read: PURCHASE PRICE BREAKDOWN AGREEMENT ON THE PURCHASE OF J & L VIDEO LTD. ... The subject line is: "Re: Sale of Assets — J & L Video to Len Hryciw". ... Even in that context it does not speaK of J & L Video Ltd. acquiring anything. ...

Armstrong & Co. Ltd. v. The Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise, [1966] CTC 778, 66 DTC 5505 JACKETT, P. ... The lead slugs are remelted and the matrix board is discarded once the stamps are found to create proper impressions. ’ ’ It might also be mentioned, although this does not appear to be mentioned in the Tariff Board’s declaration, that it was established by the evidence before the Board, and it is common ground, that, in a common type of printing process, exactly the same steps of (a) production of lead slugs containing the wording it is desired to print and locking several of them in a chase, (b) application thereto of a matrix board so as to indent the matrix board with the characters from the lead slugs, and (ce) application of a sheet of raw rubber to the matrix board in such manner as to force the rubber into the indentations in the matrix board and curing the rubber while in that state are used to produce a rubber sheet that is used for the final stage of the printing process. ... In examining this question, it is to be borne in mind that it is common ground that the appellant’s only difficulty is to bring the articles in question within that part of the paragraph in Schedule III to which reference has already been made that reads, ‘ matrices... made... by... a manufacturer or producer for use exclusively in the manufacture or production of printed matter”. ...

For the various financial years of the company ending on January 31 and for the financial years of the appellant shareholder, the expenses in dispute are given below: Appellant company Appellant shareholder 1966 $ 1,210.00 1966 $ 7,565.05 1967 $ 6,965.05 1967 $11,200.55 1968 $13,758.17 1968 $10,869.66 1969 $11,361.51 1969 $10,231.30 1970 $10,231.30 1970 $ 9,346.01 1971 $14,119.92 1971 $ 4,050.18 1972 $ 6,087.00 $57,645.95 $59,349.75 less 8,125.85 less 11,387.82 (see par 3.02.2) (see par 3.02.1 (a) and (b)) $49,520.10 $47,961.93 4.04 This table, which was compiled from the ledgers and vouchers of the appellant company, contains sixty-three items in amounts varying from $65 to $3,960.53, which vary in kind from the keeping of horses to the purchase of an organ and include the purchase of a fur coat, purchase of a tractor and construction of a clubhouse on a farm. ... The appellant shareholder admitted this fact (TS 1 p 51). 4.05.5 The expenses paid by the appellant company for the farm consist of the labour of carpenters, labour of a regular employee, construction wood and the purchase of machinery: Total expenses including purchase of machinery 1966 $ 610.00 1967 $1,783.89 $ 590.00 1968 $2,263.27 “Nil” 1969 $5,518.41 $1,160.00 1970 $3,088.78 $2,804.46 1971 $6,761.80 $1,300.00 1972 $3,927.00 $3,927.00 $9,781.46 4.05.6 The expenses for wood, labour and repairs on the farm may be broken down as follows: 1967 Plumbing $ 124.38 Wood and repairs 355.39 Wood 94.45 Wood 1,177.46 Repairs 176.25 Repairs 443.42 $2,371.35 1968 Labour $ 624.38 Wood 137.67 Labour 467.68 Wood 65.00 Wood 550.89 Labour 1,075.50 $2,921.12 1969 Wood (/ of $907.15) $ 403.58 1970 Labour $ 284.32 1971 Labour $ 640.00 Wood (/ of $829.95) 415.00 Labour 1,078.25 Labour 2,401.47 $ 5,222.62 $10,515,09 4.05.7 The other expenses claimed with respect to the farm are the following: (a) labour of the groom, Mr Ricard, who was paid $3,960.53 in 1968 and $3,334.26 in 1969; (b) medical expenses of the daughter of a farmhand, $117.00 in 1969; (c) repair of electric cables broken by visitors, $624 in 1968 and $969 in 1969; (d) boarding of farm horses (the Legardeur firm), $610 in 1966. 4.06 Expenditure on residence It was also admitted that in 1967 a sum of $1,261.97 was paid by the appellant company for wood used to repair the appellant shareholder’s residence (TS 1 pp 74 and 75). 4.07 Cocktail party and meal expenditures 4.07.1 The appellant explained (TS 1 p 53) that in 1966, following an important political appointment of a friend who had, moreover, introduced him to many customers, he gave a cocktail party (with snacks). ... Year Penalties Tax payable 1966 $ 311.84 $ 1,247.35 1967 516.06 2,064.22 1968 582.19 2,328.77 1969 600.52 2,402.07 1970 546.07 2,184.28 1971 190.56 762.25 1972 412.40 1,649.60 $3,159.64 $12,638.54 B. ...