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

While that’s not a great indication, his wife’s conduct in coming back to Canada is certainly not very great support for the appellant’s contention that the spatial bounds of their “lives” — in the plural — had been relocated to Ireland. (9) He returned to Canada for all family funerals. ... Ultimately, therefore, we come down to one point — his own testimony is that during the period 1976, 1977 and 1978 up until about August, he was employed by a company, TARA, and not by Canadian Mine Services. The possibility — and I emphasize that word — is that he was employed in the years 1976, 1977 and 1978 by TARA, allegedly an Irish company, and not by Canadian Mine Services. ...

He was a member of the partnership of E & B Cowan, Consulting Engineers, founded in 1945. ... I have found that this project has kept me young — I should have quit when I was 65 but I have found that working on this project has kept me young — it keeps me wanting to make sure that this happens and we are going to make it happen this year because we are working with a major company, a US company, this is the trouble up here you know we don’t think like they do down there, and we are going to build a demonstration plant in Alberta — a small mill — now the sulphite — the sulphite and sulphate — now sulphate is worse than sulphite, but the sulphite is something that you smell. ... Law — Case Law — Analysis 4.01 Law The provisions of the Income Tax Act involved in the present case are paragraphs 18(1)(a) and (b), 20(1)(t) and subsection 37(1). ...

The context of the appeal is evident from the pleadings filed by the appellant: — In 1977 Fambeau Limited sold the properties for a total consideration of $622,750. — The company estimated that the aggregate value of these properties as at December 31, 1971 was $650,000. ... Tonin’s position that it had absolutely no effect whatsoever is simply incredible and, therefore, I think it completely — that kind of position — completely undermines whatever other testimony that he had to give in this particular case. ... As a layman walking down the street, one would anticipate — as my friend has submitted to you you should, you should take judicial notice of it — that a big, booming, brand new development is going to have some impact on the surrounding area. ...

. —... the Appellant has not established that the payments being the subject of the 109(1)(f) claim were actually made in any bona fide manner, accordingly no such deductions should be allowed. ... Findings As I understand it, the following are the amounts claimed and at issue: — in 1973—$1,800 to Toronto Express (claimed $1,650) — in 1974—$1,950 to Bank of Nova Scotia (claimed $1,758) — in 1975—$1,300 to Punjab Express $ 727.12—Royal Bank draft (claimed $2,584) *$ 700.12—CIBC bank draft —in 1976—$2,865—to Punjab Express $3 585 800—Royal Bank draft *No receipt form presented to Board. ...

The appellant purchased the farm in 1976 for a price of approximately $155,000 allocated as follows: Land — $99,500 Buildings — 29,000 Equipment — 15,500 Cattle — 11,000 Since purchasing the farm, the appellant has cleared and “tiled” 48 acres which were uncleared at the time of purchase, and now utilizes the total of 100 acres in growing crops and looking after his cattle. ... The single and sole word “income” does not lose its basic value as “profit” or “gain” — (the opposite to “loss”) — just because it may be used as part of the term “source of income”. ... Economic reality did not, and still does not, provide the major motivation for this appellant’s dedication to the farm — it remains, as indicated, a sideline business no matter how substantial in size when compared with his chief source of income — his employment. ...

In 1968 he owned a business known as Town & Country Hairdressing and his full occupation was that of hairdresser. ... Between the years 1974 and 1977 the appellant reported the following income and expenses with respect to the raising of race horses on this property; Year Income Expenses 1974 $ 55 $ 3,097.00 1975 nil 11,268.19 1976 1,200 13,273.00 1977 2,000 16,587.00 The relevant section to be considered is section 31 of the Act which reads as follows: 31.(1) Where a taxpayer’s chief source of income for a taxation year is neither farming nor a combination of farming and some other source of income, for the purposes of sections 3 and 111 his loss, if any, for the year from all farming businesses carried on by him shall be deemed to be the aggregate of (a) the lesser of (i) the amount by which the aggregate of his losses for the year, determined without reference to this section and before making any deductions in respect of expenditures described in section 37, from all farming businesses carried on by him exceeds the aggregate of his incomes for the year, so determined from all such businesses, and (ii) $2,500 plus the lesser of (A) /2 of the amount by which the amount determined under subparagraph (i) exceeds $2,500, and (B) $2,500, and (b) the amount, if any, by which (i) the amount that would be determined under subparagraph (a)(i) if it were read as though the words “and before making any deductions in respect of expenditures described in section 37’’ were deleted, exceeds (ii) the amount determined under subparagraph (a)(i); and for the purposes of this Act the amount, if any by which the amount determined under subparagraph (a)(i) exceeds the amount determined under subparagraph (a)(ii) is the taxpayer’s “restricted farm loss’’ for the year. (2) For the purpose of this section, the Minister may determine that a taxpayer’s chief source of income for a taxation year is neither farming nor a combination of farming and some other source of income. ...

Now, what I do with that — that’s one of the assistant director’s main tools — is I move each scene around and I put together days of shooting and eventually weeks of shooting. ... I might mention that from the point of view of Westminster Films, we have about six (6) people on staff — secretaries, receptionists, office managers, a couple of producers — and everybody else is freelance. ... Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison Ltd v MacDonald & Evans, (1952) 1 TLR 101; 28. ...

In 1967 the firm of Frappier & Holland was incorporated by the appellant and her husband who also worked as an investment dealer for Ord, Wallington & Co Ltd, and operated a business similar to that of Ord, Wallington & Co Ltd. ... Alternatively, he holds that the amount of $49,029.03, if expended, was not spent to earn income from a business she was Carrying on but was spent to protect the future business of Frappier & Holland Inc with which she was connected or, again, the amount was spent to acquire for Frappier & Holland Inc the clients who, through her, formerly bought securities from Ord, Wallington & Co Ltd which in either case the respondent contends would be a nondeductible capital gain. ‘ Even though the appellant testified that she was on a strict commission basis with Ord, Wallington & Co Ltd, and that she received no directives from the company as to working hours or the manner of dealing with clients, I am of the opinion that the appellant was not an independent contractor but was an employee of Ord, Wallington & Co. ... There is no evidence that the appellant billed Ord, Wallington & Co Ltd for services rendered as an independent contractor. ...

In so reassessing the Appellant’s income tax liability, the Respondent relied, inter alia, on the following assumptions of fact: (a) The 336 shares owned by the Appellant in Baird & Company Limited were shares of capital stock of a Canadian-controlled private corporation; (b) The Appellant still owned the 336 shares referred to in paragraph 4(a) on December 31, 1979; (c) As a result of the bankruptcy of Baird & Company Limited on March 27, 1979, the Appellant was deemed to have disposed of the 336 shares at the end of her 1979 taxation year and to have reacquired them immediately thereafter at a cost equal to nil; (d) The Appellant incurred a business investment loss with respect to the deemed disposition of the 336 shares referred to in paragraph 4(c) in the amount of $126,000.00; (e) The Appellant’s allowable business investment loss in 1979 was $63,000.00; (f) The Appellant’s total income in 1978 and 1979 was as follows: 1978 — $44,049.00 1979 — $48,990.00 4. The Facts The facts are not in dispute. 4.01 On August 28, 1972, the appellant inherited three hundred and thirty six (336) common shares in Baird & Company Limited from the estate of her father. the late James Baird. 4.02 At the time of death, a value of one hundred and twenty six thousand dollars ($126,000) was accepted by the Department of National Revenue as the value of the three hundred and thirty six (336) common shares. 4.03 On March 27, 1979, Baird & Company Limited was adjudicated as bankrupt. 4.04 As a consequence of the bankruptcy of Baird & Company Limited, the appellant was deemed to have disposed of the said shares at the end of 1979 for nil thereby incurring a loss of one hundred and twenty six thousand dollars ($126,000). 4.05 The said loss of the appellant, upon the deemed disposition of the said shares in Baird & Company Limited, was claimed as a capital loss for the taxation years ended December 31, 1978 and 1979. 4.06 The said loss of the appellant, upon the deemed disposition of the said shares in Baird & Company Limited, was reassessed as an allowable business investment loss. 9. Law — Analysis 5.01 Law The provisions of the Income Tax Act, SC 1970-71-72, c 63, as amended, involved in the present case are paragraphs 3(b), 3(d), 3(e), section 38, and paragraphs 39(1)(b), 39(1)(c), 111 (1) (a), and 111 (8)(b). 5.02 Analysis 5.02.1 In claiming a capital loss, the appellant wants to be able to deduct from capital accumulations in the future. ...

The proceeds thus received by appellant from the sale of the said shares in the capital stock of Fibracan were reinvested, for example, in shares quoted on the Stock Exchange — to cite only a few, Industrial Acceptance Corporation, Dupont of Canada, Great Lakes Paper Ltd., Price Co., Abitibi, Alcan, Chemcell, Traders, Westcoast, Bell Canada, American Growth Special, Acklands Ltd., etc. in the same way as an individual makes investments. 22. ... This report, which considered inter alia the situation of the Canadian market, anticipated production costs and the planned financial structure of the business, forecast the following profits: Net Profit Net Profit before after after Available for Year Sales Sales Tax Tax Tax Tax Reinvestment^ 1 $ 549,600 $ 67,250 $ 43,900 $ 89,900 2 870,200 181,600 98,610 133,410 3 1,059,600 254,660 135,250 165,490 The factory called for an initial investment of $220,000. ...