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

The list did not include all the properties managed by Murdock & Maber Agencies Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Murdock & Maber”). The appellant contends that the expenditure of $30,000 made by it for the purchase of the list of property management accounts from Murdock & Maber was an expense properly deductible from income and should not be considered in any way as a capital outlay or as an “eligible” capital expenditure. ... All of the accounts in the list provided by Murdock & Maber required approaching the owners and the negotiating of new contracts by the appellant. ...

Lot Block Dist Lot Plan PURCHASE PRICE OF: 1 & 2 49 548 STREET CITY OF ADDRESS 1450 Chesterfield Avenue (18 Ste apt Bldg) North Vancouver, BC THE PRICE OR SUM OF FOR: Two Hundred & Thirty Five Thousand Dollars $235,000 Payable on the following terms, namely (Cash) Two Hundred & Five Thousand Dollars 205,000 Of which the deposit shall form part. ... Argument On the main point at issue, the favourable points, according to counsel, were that the appellant: — in order to purchase the building, took out a five-year mortgage with a substantial penalty clause for early payment; —took out a second mortgage at an atrociously high interest rate—18% per annum; — renovated several of the suites, did work on the heating system and the furnace room; — put in an office just off the lobby; — brought her sister from Toronto, out of a secure employment position to help her run the building; — moved into the building herself with her fiance; — rented suites in November 1973, for which on registration under STA she had to pay the residents a penalty. ... There was (simply) an avenue available to her that Mr Carp persuaded her she should keep there.” —. ...

The said $24,000 was paid to A Pawlowski & Sons Limited in 1973 by Kaiser. ... A Pawlowski & Sons Limited never billed Kaiser for any such services. ... The appellant had the major control of A Pawlowski & Sons Limited which gave him the right to act as he pleased. ...

It was contended by the respondent that: — the appellant incurred no capital loss in its 1975 taxation year; — the amount of net capital loss available to the appellant to carry back to its 1974 taxation year was nil. ... There is, however, a new factor in the instant case which warrants re-examination — that upon which the entire casé of the appellant is founded. ... While the sale of shares would normally be a “... transaction or event entitling a taxpayer to proceeds of disposition...” ...

Law — Cases at Law — Analysis 4.01 Law The main provisions of the Income Tax Act, SC 1970-71-72, c 63 as amended, involved in the present case are subsection 9(1) and paragraphs (a), (b) and (h) of subsection 18(1) and the definition of “personal and living expenses” as defined in subsection 248(1). ... Day & Ross Limited v The Queen, [1976] CTC 707; 76 DTC 6433; 10. MNR v Olva Diana Eldridge, [1964] CTC 545; 64 DTC 5338; 11. CIR v E C Warnes & Co Ltd, 2 TC 227; 12. MNR v L D Caulk Company of Canada Limited and Goldsmith Bros Smelting and Refining Co Limited, [1954] CTC 28; 54 DTC 1011; 13. ...

In his testimony the buyer, Mr Keefler — and the appellant’s witness — stated that he had explained to the appellant that the company did not have the funds and that the bank’s reply to a loan application was pending. ... In his notice of appeal the appellant admitted that Lord Equipment did not issue him with a T4 slip, and Mr Keefler testified that he had not sent the cheque as he did not have sufficient funds in the bank to cover it — any more than he had sufficient funds to cover the cheques for $25,657.20 and $5,500 that he had issued at the appellant’s request. ...

Income Tax Act, RSC 1952, c 148 — 8(1) — Appropriation of property to There were two issues in this appeal. (1) In 1956 the appellant became part-owner of 105 acres of raw land in return for making certain mortgage payments. ... In short, none of the usual preliminary steps had been taken before — or even after — acquiring the said property. ... Following incorporation of this company, the appellant continued his association with Windsor Barrel & Drum Company Limited as its president. ...

Thus, it seems to be perfectly clear that the Minister, in making an assessment under the above circumstances, is bound to decide — whether or not a business is being carried on for profit or with a reasonable expectation of profit — on the basis of the facts and figures immediately available to him and pertinent to the taxation year being assessed. ... The business of farming for the down-to-earth purpose of making a profit — so far as the ordinary individual taxpayer is concerned — is usually regarded as a serious, full-time occupation. ... However, he seems to have the erroneous notion that the original cost of putting his farm property in a good state of repair and making it usable was an income expense and, therefore, chargeable against income — which in this case was his salaried earnings. ...

. — On May 20, 1975, the appellant shareholder(s) received a loan from Morris in the amount of $24,746.33; — During his 1975 taxation year, the appellant was a shareholder of Morris by virtue of being the registered holder of one share; — The purpose of the loan was to enable the appellant to purchase a building situated at 8215 Champ d’Eau in the City of St Leonard, District of Montreal; — The lending of money did not form part of Morris’ ordinary business; — On November 30, 1976, the said loan in the amount of $24,746.33 was repaid to the lending company, and on the same day, Morris reloaned the same amount of $24,746.33 guaranteed by a mortgage in favour of the lender, Morris. The position as outlined by the appellants was: — The taxpayer(s), in 1975, (each) owned 50 per cent of the issued and outstanding common shares of SERIT HOLDINGS LIMITED (“Serit”). — Serit owned (and continues to own) 96 of the 100 issued and outstanding common shares of Morris. ... Contentions For the appellants: — The taxpayer(s) was not a “Shareholder” of Morris. ...

Law — Cases of Law — Analysis 4.01 Law The main provisions of the Income Tax Act involved in the present case are paragraph 8(1)(h) and subsection 8(2) which read as follows: 8. (1) In computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from an office or employment, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as are wholly applicable to that source or such part of the following amounts as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto: (h) where the taxpayer, in the year, (i) was ordinarily required to carry on the duties of his employment away from his employer’s place of business or in different places, (ii) under the contract of employment was required to pay the travelling expenses incurred by him in the performance of the duties of his office or employment, and (iii) was not in receipt of an allowance for travelling expenses that was, by virtue of subparagraph 6(1)(b)(v), (vi) or (vii), not included in computing his income and did not claim any deduction for the year under paragraph (e), (f) or (g), amounts expended by him in the year for travelling in the course of his employment; (2) Except as permitted by this section, no deductions shall be made in computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from an office or employment. 4.02 Cases of Law The respondent referred to the Board the case of Walter Wylde v MNR, [1979] CTC 3041; 79 DTC 829, which refers to the cases of: HMQ v Lavers, [1978] CTC 341; 78 DTC 6230; Krieger v MNR, [1979] CTC 2283; 79 DTC 269; HMQ v Diemert, [1976] CTC 301; 76 DTC 6187; and, Guay v MNR, [1970] Tax ABC 1201; 70 DTC 1781. 4.03 Analysis 4.03.1 Because the appellant is an employee, the only provision of the Income Tax Act, which provides a deduction for travelling expenses is paragraph 8(1)(h) of the Act quoted above. ...