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

In 1971, the Appellant reported net income from lot sales as follows: Gross Proceeds $24,700.00 Deduct: Cost $15,345.47 Gross Profit $ 9,354.53 Expenses $ 275.02 Add: Interest Income (6 lots) $ 480.93 Net Income $ 9,560.44 5. ... The Appellant reported a net profit from the sale of the thirteen lots as follows: Gross Proceeds $35,199.50 Cost $28,498.73 $ 6,700.77 Less: Cancellation of 1971 sale 1971 Gross Profit included above 9,354.33 Less: Overclaimed Cost (2,192.21) 7,162.32 Less: Cash collected (1,300.00) $ 5,862.32 Gross Profit $ 838.45 Expenses $ 822.97 Net Profit $ 15,48 7. ...

He calculated his capital gain on the following basis: Proceeds of dispostion $80,000 Less legal fees re sale of land $ 200 Gross proceeds $79,800 Less ACB of NW 26-27-16 as of January 1,1972 $16,000 Less ACB of residence as of January 1,1972 $30,000 Less ACB of SE 33-27-16 as of March 13,1974 $11,200 $57,200 Capital gain $22,600 The Minister, on the other hand, calculated the appellant’s taxable capital gain on the sale of the farm land in the following manner: Proceeds from sale of land $80,000.00 Less: Legal fees for sale of land $ 200.50 $79,799.50 Less: Fair Market Value of buildings 10,000 Less: Adjusted Cost Base of land sold ($10,000 + $11,200) 21,200.00 $48,599.50 Less: Residence exemption 6,000.00 Capital gain $42,599.50 In summary, the Minister valuated the north west quarter 26-27-16-W2, as of Valuation Day, at $10,000, and the south east one-quarter 33-27-16-W2, as the adjusted cost base, at $11,200, being the amount paid by the appellant to Marathon Realty Company Limited in March 1974. ... He gave as a correlation and final estimate of value: (1) Cost Approach — Land $10,000 — Buildings 10,800 TOTAL $20,800 (2) Market Data Approach $19,000 (3) Final Value Estimate $20,000 (4) Value Estimate Breakdown — Land $10,000 — Buildings 10,000 TOTAL $20,000 Although Mr Orthner was subjected to an extensive and sometimes rambling cross-examination, the more that he was cross-examined, the more forcible his evidence became in support of his views as to valuation of lands and buildings. ...

The reassessment was made and confirmed on the following assumptions of fact: (a) from 1974 to 1979 the Appellant owned one half of a tobacco farm comprising 235 acres of land; (b) in January, 1979 40 acres of the land were sold and in March, 1979, 148 acres plus buildings, equipment and marketing board rights were sold; (c) the Appellant incurred capital gains on the disposition of the land in 1979 calculated as follows: Proceeds of sale of 42 acres $ 40,000.00 Less: Cost 14,097.00 Less: Mortgage reserve: Capital Gain $ 6,476.00 Appellant’s share (50%) $ 3,238.00 Proceeds less disposal costs on sale of 148 acres $160,009.92 Less Cost 49,674.47 Less Mortgage reserve: Capital Gain $ 47,297.82 Appellant’s share (50%) $ 23,648.91 (d) the Appellant did not report any income from the sale of the farm land and assets in 1979; (e) on the sale of the land in 1979 the Appellant incurred a taxable capital gain of $13,443.46; (f) in February 1981 the Appellant acquired by purchase another tobacco farm comprising land, marketing board rights, buildings and equipment; (g) the Appellant did not file an election under subsection 44(1) of the Income Tax Act in his return of income for 1980. 3. ... Law — Analysis 4.01 Law The main legal provision involved in this case is subsection 44(1) of the Income Tax Act. ...

Each owned 33 / per cent of the shares (letters patent — Exhibit A-2). ... But that is what I do not understand: your responsibility in Emerillon — you had capital stock of $13,000.00 — was that your investment? ... Act — case law — analysis 4.01 Act The principal provisions of the Income Tax Act involved in the case at bar are 18(1)(a) and 20(1)(I) and (p). ...

At the hearing, the appellant testified as follows: In 1964, he became a shareholder of Robertson, Malone & Co Limited by investing $10,000 therein. ... His salary was nominal but, at the end of each year, instead of keeping the money in the company, the profit was shared amongst the shareholders and every year the appellant paid substantial tax thereon as appears in Exhibit A-7, as follows: INCOME AND TAXES PAID FOR PERIOD 1964-1971 Salary/ Bonuses Commissions Other Total Income Taxes Paid Salary/ 1964 $- $18,873 $- $18,873 $ 5,438 1965 16,227 — 16,227 3,655 1966 — 14,564 220 14,784 2,980 1967 478 21,680 (1,060) 21,097 5,918 1968 14,463 46,748 2,428 63,629 27,241 1969 71,443 18,000 (926) 88,516 42,574 1970 18,913 60,500 1,264 80,677 37,728 1971 43,801 10,500 1,581 55,882 22,125 From time to time, the appellant made several short-term loans to the company in order to comply with the Toronto Stock Exchange requirements. ... See Olympia Floor & Wall Tile (Quebec) Ltd v MNR, [1970] CTC 99; 70 DTC 6085 and Pigott Investments v The Queen, [1973] CTC 693; 73 DTC 5507 (above). ...

Benrush Holdings Limited was the controlling shareholder of John Northway & Son Limited, a public corporation which carried on another department store business known as “Northway” in competition with the Appellant. 4. ... The aforementioned loan agreement provided that the term of the loan was six months from October 25, 1961 to April 25, 1962, the rate of interest was 12% per annum, and Benrush Holdings Limited hypothecated and pledged 880,000 common shares in the capital stock of John Northway & Sons Limited as security for the repayment of the loan. 8. ... The first agreement reads as follows: MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT made this 25th day of October 1961, BETWEEN: BENRUSH HOLDINGS LIMITED, a company incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario, having its head Office in the City of Toronto, Hereinafter called “Benrush” OF THE FIRST PART: — and — THE MAY COMPANY LIMITED, a Company incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario, having its head office in the City of Toronto, Hereinafter called “May Company” OF THE SECOND PART: — and — DAVID RUSH, of the City of Toronto, in the County of York, Executive, Hereinafter called “Guarantor” OF THE THIRD PART: WHEREAS May Company has agreed to lend to Benrush, the sum of Three Hundred and Twenty-Five Thousand ($325,000.00) Dollars on the terms and conditions hereinafter set out and Benrush has agreed to hypothecate and pledge Eight Hundred and Eighty Thousand (880,000) common shares of the capital stock of John Northway and Son, Limited as security for repayment of such loan; AND WHEREAS Six Hundred and Six Thousand, Nine Hundred (606,900) common shares of capital stock of John Northway and Son, Limited are Subject to escrow, and are to be released as to one-third (Zj) on the 30th day of November, 1961, as to one-third (Va) on the 28th day of February, 1962, and as to the balance on the 31st day of May, 1962, subject as to all or part to earlier release with the written consent of the Ontario Securities Commission. ...

.- $87,468 V-Day Value at December 31st, 1971 $77,000 Taxable Capital Gain (1/2 of $10,468) $ 5,234 and reduced from $12,181.60 assessed by the Minister to $5,234 and setoff against the capital loss claimed by the Appellant. ... —the appellant submits that a disposition within the meaning of the Income Tax Act took place in the year 1972 giving rise to a capital loss of $40,500 in the year 1972; —he is entitled to carry this loss forward into the year 1973; — in the alternative, the appellant submits that a disposition within the meaning of the Income Tax Act took place in the year 1973 giving rise to a capital loss of $40,500 in the year 1973. ... In the appellant’s valuation report the breakdown between land and buildings was not provided, but in that of the respondent’s the following detail was provided: House — $10,000 Out-building — $ 1,000 Land — $53,000 $64,000 Mr Hutchison was of the opinion that while he had made, and provided to the Board, several comparisons dealing with similar buildings in certain cases and certain lands in other cases, the totality of the Subject property must be regarded in: any such evaluation report. ...

(Airport) Ltd. 34,804.16 34,753.52 Total taxable income declared $66,462.23 $69,170,01 Calculation of taxes payable if section 138A(2) applied Tax on $35,000 — 21% 7,350.00 7,350.00 Tax on balance — 50% 15,731.11 17,085.00 $23,081.11 $24,435.00 Less: provincial credit — 10% 6,646.22 6,917.00 $16,434.89 $17,518.00 Less: tax previously paid C.L.B. ... (Airport) Ltd. 3,828.46 7,430.23 3,822.89 7,760.58 Additional taxes due $ 9,004,66 $ 9,757,42 Increase in taxes: $9,004.66 +- 9,757.42:: $18,762.08 In the first place, I intend to dispose of the submission made by the appellant under paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the Notice of Appeal. ... Reference is also had to: Doris Trucking Co Ltd v MNR, [1968] 2 Ex CR 501; [1968] CTC 303; Kitchener Manufactured Homes Limited v MNR, [1968] Tax ABC 748; Provident Finance Corporation Ltd v MNR, [1969] Tax ABC 413; MNR v Howson & Howson Ltd, [1970] CTC 36; Baycast Products Ltd et al v MNR, [1969] Tax ABC 339; Barkman Developments Ltd et al v MNR, [1968] 1 Ex CR 229; [1967] CTC 325, upheld unanimously by the Supreme Court of Canada without written reasons. ...

The name “Debco” was made up of the first letter of each of the surnames of its three founders (also its shareholders) — “D” for Doricott, “e” for Eusanio and “b” for Brotherston, “co” being, of course, the abbreviation of the word “company”. ... In that regard, it should be observed that the appellant’s balance sheet as at September 30, 1967, covering the taxation year under appeal, contains the following inexplicable item under the heading of share capital — ‘Issued & Fully Paid: 3 Common Shares (par value $1.00) $99.00”. ... We changed the heating system and then we had space on the outside of the building which we did not have for stock of any kind. and — It was not constructed right. ...

The taxpayer and his wife acquired their home in the country — containing some six acres of land — about 1949. ... The expenditures of $1,098.03, mentioned earlier herein, which were made by the taxpayer in his 1968 taxation year are as follows: Proportion of total land taxes amounting to about $400 $ 146.60 Fence Repairs 8.72 Machinery and Truck Expenses (station wagon) —Gasoline and Oil 17.64 —Repairs, Licenses, Insurance 12.58 Automobile Expenses: —Gasoline and Oil 20% of $87.83 17.57 —Repairs, Licenses, Insurance 20% of $201.86 40.37 Feed and Straw (for trees) 11.34 Seed and Plants 40.09 Fertilizers, Sprays, Other Chemicals 4.64 Light, Power 20% of $85.79 17.16 Other Expenses (Specify) — Use of office in house, tool shed and driving shed 1/7 of $737.95 105.42 Capital Cost Allowance (From Schedule) 675.90 Total Expenses $1,098.03 It should be noted that, in his Notice of Objection herein dated March 12, 1970, the taxpayer stated — “I contest this disallowance of farm- ing loss — details to follow”. ... So I pictured the bush there as being marketable some day and I planned it for the time, just as our government plans for seventy years of age, charges us for our old age pension now and they pay you at seventy years — it is now down to 65 years l realize, but it was originally seventy years — that is the type of thing I was planning for, an income for that time of life. ...