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 1969 Warwick Bros & Rutter Co Ltd, Karr's Inc, Mutual Wholesale Stationery Limited, Viscount Plastics (Canada) Limited and Bedisco Inc were also purchased, and I believe the appellant company caused another company, Bel-Air Stationers Ltd, to be incorporated. 5 In general, through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, the appellant company dealt in stationery for schools and offices, and in general business supplies, and each of the companies acquired either specialized in a certain type of stationery, or had a name favourably well known in that field of business not only locally but in other parts of the country. 6 In 1969 the appellant became a listed public company. ... This statement was part of the auditors' report to the directors of the appellant company by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co, Chartered Accountants, dated May 21, 1970, and was presented in slightly different form from the annual report to the shareholders filed as part of Exhibit A-3. 11 Fanco Products Inc was a manufacturer of brief-cases, attaché cases, binders and schoolbags. ... Stewart & Morrison Limited, a decision of the then Exchequer Court of Canada ([1970] C.T.C. 431, 70 D.T.C. 6295) upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada ([1972] C.T.C. 73, 72 D.T.C. 6049), as reported at page 438 [6299]: The question for determination is what was the true nature of the advances that made up the amount claimed as a deduction by the respondent. ...

Act — Case Law — Analysis 4.01 Act Because of the assessment which has been issued, the sections of the Income Tax Act involved in the case at bar are subsections 15(1) and 245(2). ... Evaluation de (’Emplacement et La Technique de Parité — Principes et Concepts généraux en évaluation foncière — Min des Aff municipales, Dir Générale de l’évaluation, Sept 1974; 17. Real Estate Appraising in Canada — 2nd edition 1972 (Appraisal Institute of Canada) — “Plan of the Appraisal”, p 52 and “Appraising Subdivisions”, p 87. 4.03 Analysis 4.03.1 The burden of proof rests with the appellant. ...

J Santarossa & Sons Total assets $38,737.92 Partnership—closing balance Sheet June 30, 1967 2. ... J Santarossa & Sons Erie Sand and Gravel and Vanier Street Opening balance sheet set up at cost. ... Copy of statements Shows repayment of Iq^n December 19, J Santarossa & Sons Limited 1974—$45,000.00 at CIBC 16. ...

Exhibit A-4 — Same as above, dated April 22, 1974 signed by the appellant. Exhibit A-5 — Bank Statement—August 1974. Exhibit A-6 &) Cancelled cheques signed by the appellant to Helen Hollo A-7) (the appellant’s mother). ... Exhibit R-3 — Union Gas Limited account for $6.39—October 1974. Exhibit R-4 — Same as above for $1.02—September 1974. ...

In his understanding certain things were obvious: — he was a shareholder in the company, — he participated in the management of the company, — he had arranged his day-to-day work so that he could go to the office of the company at least once a day, — he would later have the possibility of acquiring more shares. ... He didn't seem to really follow the purpose of the note or I believe he indicated quite clearly he didn't want to — wouldn’t expect to claim back on the note — make a demand, simply because why would he do that, he had bought shares, he has indicated this is his understanding, and yet you have indicated a practice otherwise. ... Law — Case Law — Analysis 4.01 Law The provisions of the Income Tax Act which are involved in the present case are 3(e), 40(2)(g) and 50(1) and read as follows: 3. ...

—When the facts are fully assessed concerning these properties, the following emerges: Sale of 30 acres @ $2,500 $ 75,000 Sale of 10 acres @ $10,500 105,000 Selling (without Selling Expense adjustment) $180,000 VD Value as accepted by Edmonton Office 200,000 Capital Loss for tax purposes $(20,000) —The primary intent was to use the property for the building of a residence. ...

He received accordingly (— X 0.18¢) $2,337.48 in 1977 and $2,524.14 in 1978. ... Law — Law Cases — Analysis 4.01 Law The main sections of the Income Tax Act invoked by both counsel in the prsent case are paragraph 6(1)(a), subparagraphs 6(1)(b)(i) and (vii), and subsection 6(3). ... There shall be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year as income from an office or employment such of the following amounts as are applicable: (a) Value of benefits. — the value of board, lodging and other benefits of any kind whatever (except the benefit he derives from his employer’s contributions to or under a registered pension fund or plan, group sickness or accident insurance plan, private health services plan, supplementary unemployment benefit plan, deferred profit sharing plan or group term life insurance policy) received or enjoyed by him in the year in respect of, in the course of, or by virtue of an office or employment; (b) Personal or living expenses. — all amounts received by him in the year as an allowance for personal or living expenses or as an allowance for any other purpose, except (i) travelling or personal or living expense allowances (A) expressly fixed in an Act of the Parliament of Canada, or (B) paid under the authority of the Treasury Board to a person who was appointed or whose services were engaged pursuant to the Inquiries Act, in respect of the discharge of his duties relating to such appointment or engagement, (vii) allowances (not in excess of reasonable amounts) for travelling expenses received by an employee (other than an employee employed in connection with the selling of property or negotiating of contracts for his employer) from his employee if they were computed by reference to time actually spent by the employee travelling away from (A) the municipality where the employer’s establishment at which the employee ordinarily worked or to which he ordinarily made his reports was located, and (B) the metropolitan area, if there is one, where that establishment was located, in the performance of the duties of his office or employment, (3) Payments by employer to employee. ...

Accordingly, the sum of $14,944.87 was received by the appellant on March 4,1976, being the sum of one year’s salary and pension benefit less deductions for income tax, Canada Pension Plan, Unemployment Insurance and personal use of an automobile, and calculated as follows: one year’s salary $20,720.00 pension benefit $ 1,036.00 $21,756.00 Deduct: Income Tax $ 6,216.00 Canada Pension Plan, Unemployment Insurance, Automobile $ 595.13 $ 6,811.13 $14,944.87 (Exhibit A-2) The appellant received the said amount “in satisfaction of all claims arising out of my employment by Nisbet Lodge and as agreed between us up to this date” (March 4, 1976) as it appears from “Statement of settlement.of termination of employment, effective February 29th, 1976”(Exhibit A-2). ... We were also aware of his family and we had a high regard for his wife and son and I believe even now that we really tried to make it as easy as possible for Mr & Mrs Hibbins. ... Carter v Bell & Sons, [1936] 2 DLR 438; 2. Thomas G Quance v HMQ, [1974] CTC 225; 74 DTC 6210; 3. ...

By Notices of Reassessment dated May 28, 1979, (George Stevenson) and June 5. 1979, (Edward Schneider) the Appellant was reassessed in respect of his 1975 taxation year so as to calculate the taxable portion of capital gains taking into account the applicable reserve in the following manner: Capital Gain on Sale of Property (/ $6,012.40 Less: 1975 Reserve (Z>) 2,404.96 $3,607.44 Taxable Portion (50%) 50% of / $1,803.72 5. By Notice of Reassessment dated May 28, 1979, (George Stevenson) and June 5, 1979, (Edward Schneider), the Appellant’s 1976 taxation year was reassessed to calculate the applicable reserve in that year in the following manner: Additions: 1975 Reserve on Property Sale (Z>) $2,404.96 1976 Reserve (Z>) $2,261.80 Reduction in Reserve 143.16 Taxable Portion, 50% $ 71.58 Interest earned on Agreement for Sale (12) 960.65 6. ... Law — Cases at Law — Analysis 5.01 Law The counsel for both parties referred to paragraphs 20(1)(I) and (n), sections 38, 39, 40 and paragraph 79(h). 5.02 Case at Law The counsel for the respondent referred to the case of A Godfrey Harvey v MNR, [1980] CTC 2129; 80 DTC 1094. 5.03 Analysis 5.03.1 The agent for the appellant contended that the purchaser in the transaction “Sixteen Service Mannville Ltd” did not exist legally in January 1976 because the said company had not been incorporated. ...

John made all or virtually all of the mortgage payments — including the Canada Permanent mortgage. ... There remained then the $80,000 WIRA mortgage — barely equal to the total of the Wunder and Pax mortgages. ... I am sure that Margaret stated the situation correctly as she recalled it — she would only agree to sell Galt property if she could get the Paris property (at least her roughly / of it) in return. ...