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

Said Exhibit reads as follows: Dr Anthony Youatt 1973 Interest Dr Anthony Youatt Agreement of sale—Lockwood $2,405.80 Demand Loan—CIBC 520.14 Service charges and Overdraft interest expense 55.75 C/U Loans personal to pay income tax and pay Avco for personal living expenses Capital Loan $4,492.07 May 2,1972 $14,000 ($7,000 to pay Income Tax and balance for lots and over-run costs of residence) Sept 24,1972 8,000 (Furnish and redecorate clinic office) Oct 16,1972 12,000 ($7,000 operating expenses and $5,000 down payment building) March 8,1973 8,000 (Cover overdraft and expenses)(Unable to work) Aug 23,1973 11,000 (Consolidate loans and credit card balances outstanding $4,000) $53,000 Personal Loans — % x interest Total Loans $14,000 26.4% x $4,492.07 $53,000- personal $1,185.91 Allowable 3,306.16 $6,287.85 Claim $7,134.00 Allowable 6,287.85 Adjustment required $ 846.16 DD/car May 13, 1977 cc O C Ramstead 1974 Interest Agreement of sale—Lockwood—1 month $ 196.00 Demand loan—CIBC 749.48 Service charges and Overdraft interest 1,046.57 C/U—personal loan taxes and Avco personal living Longterm interest (Accrued payable) Dec 31/74 $5,775.15 Longterm interest (Paid during year) 1,518.85 $7,294.00 Oct 28,1974 $8,750.00 ($500 RRSP interest payment capital loan $159.33 + $222.36 balance personal for 1972 and 1973 income taxes) Therefore, $7,868.31 personal. Personal loans /o x interest Total loans $21,868.31 = 35.4% x $7,294.00- $2,582.08 $61,750.00- personal $2,582.08 4,711.92 Total Allowable $6,703.97 Total claimed 5,218.00 Allow additional $1,485.97 Accrued interest payable Dec 27/74 $5,684.35 Accrued interest 4 days @ $22.70 90.80 Accrued interest to Dec 31/74 $5,775.15 DD/car May 13, 1977 cc O C Ramstead Demand loan CIBC $ 395.06 S/C and Overdraft—interest 207.63 Nipawin C/U—loans personal Capital loan (Accrued in terest payable) Dec 31/75 *$8,378.02 Capital loan (Interest paid during year) 2,132.41 $10,510.43 Jan 20/75 $6,225.07 Interest capitalized 35.4% per sonal ($2,203.67) Oct 21/75 31.75 Interest capitalized Nov 20/75 3,910.00 Operating loan Personal loans % x interest Total loans $24,071.98 34.9% x $10,510.43 = $3,668.14 $71,916.82- personal portion $ 3,668.14 6,842.29 Total interest allowable $ 7,444.98 Total interest claimed 14,962.00 Adjustment required $ 7,517.02 **Total accrued, interest to Dec 31/75 $14,153.17 —Accrued interest to Dec 31/74 5,775.15 *$ 8,378.02 Accrued interest to Jan 9/76 $14,357.47 — Accrual rate ($22.70 x 9) 204.30 (used same as 1974) **$14,152.17 DD/car May 13, 1977 cc O C Ramstead It will be seen in the 1973 taxation year that the sum of $2,000 was determined from the ledger sheets of the Bank to be personal expenses covering income tax and the balance was for payment of lots adjacent to the residence of Dr Youatt. ... A portion of this statement reads as follows: 1973 $25000- $360.13 x $4492.07 = $52639.87 Personal portion of interest $2,100.94 Business portion of interest 2,391.13 $4,492.07 ^^ J- x $7294.00- 52% of $7294 $61389.87 Personal portion of interest $3,792.88 Business portion of interest 3,501.12 $7,294.00 1975 $32868.31- $360.13 x $10510-43 $65331.62 Personal portion of interest $5,150.11 Business portion of interest 5,360.32 $10,510.43 According to this witness, this portion of the calculations shows the loan (which is a personal loan of $25,000), less personal repayments over the total loans outstanding, times the interest payable in that calendar year, and he thus derived the personal portion of the interest expense. ...

Minister of National Revenue, [1982] CTC 2302, 82 DTC 1332 D E Taylor:—These appeals, heard on common evidence in Edmonton, Alberta, on February 10, 1982, were lodged against income tax assessments for the following years: Dr Lloyd G Powell (“Powell”) — 1975 & 1976 Polaris Holdings Ltd (“Polaris”)— 1975 & 1976 Mr Neil G Orser (“Orser”) — 1975 Mr Michael Piro (“Piro”) — 1975 There were four matters at issue in these appeals, all gains on sales or property — the total appeal therefore in all aspects reflects a “trading case” dispute. ... Triple Crown — Powell had lived on an “acreage” lot in the country ever since moving to Edmonton; — He liked horses; — He considered the prospect of raising horses in his retirement years would be a good objective; — Triple Crown would have been suitable, as a matter of fact, because it had 160 acres as opposed to 40 at the present farm site which, for location reasons only, was more suitable; — On the sale of Triple Crown, he immediately purchased a new “horse” farm — the current 40 acres, and has invested some $250,000 therein. Apartment — This purchase was in the same manner as the other rental holdings in Yellowknife. — The decision to sell had been that of Ibrahim, not Powell. ...

In that respect the appellant, in 1968, ploughed and tilled 3% acres of land, and for the years under appeal he reported his expenses and revenues as follows: Year Expenses Income Income Net Farming Boarding Loss Loss Hay Sales of Horses 1968 $3,288.05 $340.00 $240.00 $2,708.00 1969 2,711.62 290.00 240.00 2,181.62 The particulars of the expenses claimed by him are as follows: 1968 1969 Salaries and wages $ 239.55 $ 198.00 Interest 1,860.00 1,460.02 Building repairs 565.20 247.00 Taxes and insurance 61.97 52.95 Fence repairs 58.00 Gasoline, oil and licence 140.00 142.00 Feed and straw 93.34 117.65 Capital cost allowance 270.00 270.00 Telephone, light 224.00 During this time, the appellant was also working ten hours a day as a mechanical engineer, for which services he received a gross income of $8,447 in 1968 and $6,004 in 1969, and his wife was attending a course and working at a university so was unable to be of very much help on the farm. ... Income Tax Act, RSC 1952, c 148 — 59(1) — Date for filing notice of appeal. ...

Two notes appear at the bottom of this financial statement, and read as follows [translation]: Note 1 — This financial statement has been prepared for tax purposes only. Note 2 — Mr Eustache Laflamme sold his farm on November 1, 1976 to his sons Does and Germain. 3.12 The appellant’s balance sheet is also attached to the return. ... Act — case law — analysis 4.01 Act Sections 3, 9(1) and 10(1) of the Income Tax Act are the principal legislative provisions involved in the case at bar. ...

Year Ended September 30 Gross Income Salaries Profits Profits 1969 NIL NIL NIL 1970 $ 3,458 — $ (3,921) 1971 65,235 — (14,977) 1972 275,200 16,000 11,362 1973 324,458 70,000 96,654 1974 982,744 79,334 443,408 1975 233,507 500,000 (225,999) 1976 306,596 100,000 69,253 1977 151,418 161,200 109,640 6. ... Mr Alfred Berry outlined the development and progress of the company, and in particular emphasized the reasons as he saw them — largely unexpected and external to the operations of the business — which brought about the business decline after 1974. ... In the instant case, the circumstances put forward in support of the proper declaration of the management bonus are even more striking — particularly the resolution of the Board of Directors (Exhibit A-2). ...

Minister of National Revenue, [1981] CTC 2400, 81 DTC 281 D E Taylor:—This is an appeal heard in Toronto, Ontario, on February 23, 1981, against an income tax assessment for the year 1976 in which the Minister of National Revenue disallowed an amount of $1,054.61 claimed by the taxpayer as “moving expenses’’, described by an appellant as: — non-capital carrying costs on unoccupied residence for sale $ 775.00 —extra cost due to equity being tied up in house as a result of moving 279.61 $1,054.61 For the purposes of the hearing the appellant revised his claim and provided additional detail: — existing carrying costs on house for sale (mortgage interest and property taxes) $ 832.12 — interest on loan necessitated by move from Kitchener to Hamilton (Note: This is not the regular mortgaging on either residence, $24,300.00 @ 12 /4% for 35 days) 279.61 Counsel informed the Board that the Minister was prepared, for purposes of the hearing, to accept the mathematical validity of the $832.12 rather than the $775 since the appellant stated the earlier amount had only been an estimate. ... The expenses claimed are: — not specifically excluded — not to make the former residents more saleable —not in respect of any loss on sale of former residence —not in respect of any capital expenditure on new residence, (in other words, they are costs related purely to moving) —reasonable, and all the requirements of section 62 are met. 2. ... (ii) With regard to IT-178R2 The expenses claimed are: — reasonable — not specifically excluded — not to make property more saleable — not in respect of any loss on sale —not in respect of any capital expenditure and otherwise all the requirements of section 62 are met (iii) If the cost of cancelling and unexpired lease on former residence is deductible (and it is)—excluding any rental payment for a period during which the residence was occupied (exactly my situation—I am claiming under (b), in lieu of rent, interest and property taxes while the house was unoccupied), why is my bridge financing, also due timing of move, not deductible? ...

The reply of the respondent noted: — The appellant’s wife conceived a child in the appellant’s 1978 taxation year which child was not born in that year; — The unborn child was not wholly dependent upon the appellant in the 1978 taxation year; — A conceived but unborn child is not a child within the meaning of paragraph 109(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act. ... Counsel for the respondent also dealt with the same three basic points: — “child” — did not include “fetus” for purposes of the Act. ... Particular emphasis was placed by counsel on the words I have underlined in the phrase immediately above. — “wholly dependent” — the father could not directly support the fetus, and accordingly the “unborn” child could not be wholly dependent upon him for support — particularly financial support. — “under 21 years of age” — the interpretation to be placed on this should be that the “years” commenced at birth, not at conception. ...

Act — case law — analysis 5.01 A ct The chief sections of the Income Tax Act that apply in the case at bar are section 3, paragraph 8(1)(f), section 9, paragraph 18(1)(h) and section 67; these will be cited where necessary. 5.02 Case law The case law cited by the appellant is as follows: 1. ... Miron & Frères Ltée v MNR, [1955] CTC 182; 55 DTC 1109; and 3. RWS Johnston v MNR, [1948] CTC 195; 3 DTC 1182. 5.03. ... Nor can the Board ignore the formal notices — letters written to the appellant in 1970 and 1972 — concerning the supporting documents that were to be kept (paragraph 4.15). ...

In assessing the Appellant for the 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1978 taxation years, the Respondent relies among others on the following assumptions of facts: (a) During the years under appeal, the Appellant operated a ladieswear boutique under the name “Boutique Bela”; (b) An analysis of the taxpayer’s bank statements and cheques demonstrated higher deposits than reported sales and also substantial increase in business assets with no increase in liabilities; (c) Since the Appellant did not keep adequate books and records, the Respondent proceeded to establish the Appellant’s true income on a net worth basis for the said years; (d) By Notices of reassessments dated April 11, 1980 for the 1975 taxation year and dated June 30, 1981 for the other years under appeal, the Respondent included in the computation of the Appellant’s income additional amounts of income resuting from the net worth thereby establishing the following amounts of unreported income: 1975: $ 7,387.99 1976: $19,088.16 1977: $16,935.64 1978: $38,243.61 (e) The Appellant was unable to establish that any of the above figures were incorrect, that part of the said amount did not constitute income or should not be assessed as such for each of the years under appeal; (f) The Appellant, under circumstances amounting to gross negligence, omitted to declare the amounts stated in sub-paragraph (e) in filing his tax returns for the taxation years under appeal which justifies the imposition of a penalty for each of the said years and pursuant to sub-section 163(2) for the following amounts: 1975: $ 190.60 1976: $ 561.68 1977: $ 748.76 1978: $2,136.85 The appellant contends that the conciliation of capital failed to take into account the following gifts: 1976 1977 1978 $1,000 $25,732 $31,386 At the hearing, the field auditor, who prepared the net worth assessment, testified that at the time of his investigation he did not discover any unreported sales and was told that the appellant had received various amounts of money from his father. ...

Miss Osier, an officer of Revenue Canada, filed with the Board (no objection was raised by the appellant’s agent) a copy of a letter (Exhibit R-1) which read as follows: the Permanent Canada Permanent Trust Company Canada Permanent Mortgage Corporation 320 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M5H 2P6 Telephone (416) 361-8415 April 17, 1979 Mrs Hutchinson Appeals Division Director-Taxation 150 Main Street W Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3E1 Re: Retirement Savings Plans # 077617 & # 077649 Margaret Copeland (sic) Dear Mrs Hutchinson: As per our telephone conversations, this letter is to confirm that Retirement Savings Plan # 077617 was redeemed as at January 1977, at which time, a T4RSP was issued to Margaret Copeland for the amount of $990. As well, Retirement Savings Plan # 077649 was redeemed as at March 1,1977 and issued a T4RSP for $4,047.58. ... Yours truly, (Sgd) P Yama Patricia Yama Customer Services Administrator Retirement Savings & Fund Services /py In addition, Miss Osier filed a copy of the taxpayer’s 1976 income tax return in which had been included as income an amount of $495 similar to the amount in question in this appeal. ...