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

Among other things, these notices show the following figures: Additional In- come Additional tax Penalties 1969 $27,824.89 $ 8,017.09 $1,522.00 1970 28,608.68 8,168.65 1,553.08 1971 30,568.18 8,762.04 1,685.01 1972 30,568.18 9,545.53 1,909.11 1973 18,419.29 4,827.18 965.44 1974 21,946.44 5,646.67 1,129.34 $157,935.60 $44,967.16 $8,763.98 3.05 At the beginning of the hearing, the respondent also filed en Hasse (Exhibit I-2) the opening balance sheet at December 31, 1968 and the closing balance sheet at December 31, 1974 with the calculation of capital and various schedules all of which formed the basis of the various assessments: Mr Gabriel Juteau Revised Statement of your Assets and Liabilities at December 31 1968 1974 ASSETS Current assets: Account receivable $ 775.20 $- Bank BCN no 1708 3,214.14 3,004.26 Bank BOM c/a — 122.97 Inventory 2,000.00 — $ 5,989.34 $3,127.23 Investments: Advance to Incarpool Inc. $- $41,647.66 Incarpool shares — 990.00 Term deposit BCN — 27,000.00 Term deposit BOM — 10,200.00 Bonds “Schedule 9” — 60,056.00 Shares “Schedule 8’’ — 13,109.00 $ — $153,002.66 Net Fixed Assets: Commercial land $20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 Commercial building 8,000.00 8,000.00 Chrysler automobile 3,800.00 5,886.00 Dodge 1971 Camper Truck — 3,/00.00 Ford Truck 1968 2,800.00 2,800.00 Camper Box (hand-made) 500.00 — Residence: 34, rue des Erables 12,300.00 12,300.00 Land: 34, rue des Erables 2,000.00 2,000.00 $49,400.00 $ 54,686.00 Total Assets $55,389.34 $210,815.89 LIABILITIES Mortgage on residence $ 5,847.39 $ 3,160.11 Balance of sale price on comercial land $12,000.00 — Total liabilities $17,847.39 $ 3,160.11 CAPITAL $37,541.95 $207,655.78 Total Capital and Liabilities $55,389.34 $210,815.89 Durette/rI Section 41-1 Room 1047 Montreal, February 15, 1977 Schedule ‘1’ 3.06 At the beginning of the hearing, the appellant put forward a number of points of disagreement (hereafter appearing under the letters A to K) with certain figures on the respondent’s opening and closing balance sheets. ... This list reads as follows: Shares Iso Mines $ 7,170.00 Neonex $ 3,641.00 Pan Can Petro $ 1,480.00 Great Northern Capital $ 1,215.38 Canadian Superior Oil $ 7,781.25 Inland Chemical $ 4,357.89 Vascan $ 4,515.01 Kirkland Townsite $ 4,383.99 Revenue Properties $ 4,410.00 Miscellaneous (approximate) $20,000.00 $58,926.64 3.24 Part of Exhibit A-5 was a supporting document issued by Doherty Roadhouse & McCuaig, a member of the Canadian Association of Stockbrokers. ... The inventory at the end of 1968 would therefore amount to $15,000 ($2,000 + $5,500 + $7,500). ...

If the provisions of section 7 relating to exemptions for children can be applied herein, the total of such exemption amounts to $106,000 as hereunder set out, and therefore no estate tax is payable: Sheal Richard Green $10,000 + $17,000 $27,000 David Zalman Green $10,000 + $13,000 $23,000 Charles Leslie Green $10.000 + $11,000 = $21,000 Cheryl Adrienne Green $10.000 + $ 8,000 $18,000 Coleman Oscar Green $10.000 + $ 7,000 = $17,000 Total $106,000 The pertinent portion of section 7 of the Estate Tax Act, RSC 1970, c E-9, reads as follows: 7. (1) For the purpose of computing the aggregate taxable value of the property passing on the death of a person, there may be deducted from the aggregate net value of that property computed in accordance with Division B such of the following amounts as are applicable: (c) in respect of each child of the deceased who survives him, the lesser of (i) the value of any property passing on the death of the deceased to which the child is the successor that can, within six months after the death of the deceased or such longer period as may be reasonable in the circumstances, be established to be vested in the child for his benefit indefeasibly, or subject to defeasance only in the event of his death before attaining such age, not exceeding forty years, as is specified in the will or other instrument under or by virtue of which the property so passing became vested in him, except any such property comprising a gift described in paragraph (b) or (e) or consisting of a pension or compensation described in paragraph (f) or (g), and (ii) $10,000 plus (A) where the child was, at the time of the death of the deceased, wholly dependent upon the deceased or his spouse, or both, for support by reason of being infirm, an amount equal to the product obtained when $1,000 is multiplied by the number of full years in the period commencing on the day of the death of the deceased and ending on the day on which the child will, if ever, become 71 years of age, or (B) in any other case, the amount, if any, by which (I) the product obtained when $1,000 is multiplied by the number of full years in the period commencing on the day of the death of the deceased and ending on the day on which the child will, if ever, become 26 years of age, exceeds (11) [not applicable]. ...

Bank Records — Letter from Bank — Account Agreement — Hypothecation of Collaterals — Loan Authorizations 1979-81 — Application for Credit — Signing Authorities 7— Demand Loan Ledger F. ... Copies of Minutes — Regular Meeting H. Copies of Minutes — Annual Meeting I. ... Financial Plan — Proposal — Tabulation K. Statements — Annual L. Statements — Current Position M. ...

Yours truly, (Signed) Jean-Paul Dufour for the chief of Audit JPD/lh Lachapelle, Bruzzésé & Cie PIERRE LACHAPELLE ROBERT BRUZZESE, BCOM, CA Registered Public Accoutant Chartered Accountant 2103 Jean Talon St East Montreal tel: 721-9771 March 10, 1977 Revenue Canada, Taxation National Revenue Building 305 Dorchester Boulevard West 5th floor, section 51(4) Montreal, Quebec H2Z 1A6 Attn: Mr Jean-Pau I Dufour SUBJECT: ROBERT BRUZZESE Tax returns 1972-1973-1974 Dear Sir: I acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 24, 1977. ... Yours truly, (Signed) Jean-Paul Dufour for the Chief of Audit JPD/lh REGISTERED May 19, 1977 Mr Robert Bruzzese Jean-Paul Dufour 9029 Boisonnault Section 51-4 St-Léonard, Que 5th floor H1P 2X3 Tel: 283-5326 Dear Sir: Subject: Your tax returns for 1972, 1973 and 1974 Further to our letter of February 24, 1977, you have not sent us your supporting documents as requested and we have consequently verified your tax returns for the above-mentioned years, to which we intend to make the following changes: (A) Income from self-employment 1972 1973 1973 1974 1974 Expenses claimed $8,893.33 $10,080.75 $36,671.94 Less: Automobile expenses (1) 549.92 1,756.18 2,747.51 Rental expenses (2) — 1,105.00 — Stationery and printing (3) 210.31 644.34 964.25 Advertising and promotion (4) 71.21 199.87 388.32 Office maintenance and repairs (5) — — 573.10 CCA on furniture and equipment (6) — 878.88 1,024.30 Expenses disallowed $ 831.44 $ 4,584.27 $ 5,697.48 Expenses allowed $8,061.89 $ 5,496.48 $30,974.46 (1) 1973 and 1974 capital expenses disallowed. ...

Net Farming Loss $13,210.45 Less: Net Garage Profit 390.05 Farming Loss to be carried forward to future years $12,820.40 $12,820.40 Fixed Assets and Depreciation Balance Oct. 31/62 Additions Depreciation Oct. 31/63 Garage, — Equipment $2,388.91 $ 477.78 $ 1,911.13 Automotive 2,517.76 503.55 2,014.21 4,906.67 $ 981.33 $ 3,925.34 Farm, — Land $12,500.00 $12,500.00 Building 7,500.00 $ 750.00 6,750.00 Equipment 7,860.00 1,572.00 6,288.00 $27,860.00 $2,322.00 $25,538.00 Rent Garage — AD Rosene, Cam rose $ 1,740.67 Farm — D McLeod, Viking 500.00 Total $ 2,240.67 Interest Garage, — Provincial Treasury Branch $ 48.29 Farm, — Provincial Treasury Branch 21.32 Mr Boyd, Edmonton, Alberta 574.36 $ 643.97 Assets Sold to Company by shareholder Assets of Jubilee Esso Service $16,816.75 20 head of cattle 3,000.00 $19,816.75 Shares Issued for Cash — October 10, 1962 Mr Alfred D Rosene, Cam rose, Alberta 20 shares Mrs Dorothy E Rosene, Cam rose, Alberta 1 share In 1971 the appellant changed accountants as he found the first firm “too expensive” and hired a Mr Loren Blain, APA, who continued to complete Jubilee’s returns until 1974 when the company was wound up. In the balance sheet of Jubilee for the taxation year 1963, there is an item referred to as: Deferred Liabilities Loans payable — shareholders $15,686.97 The appellant cannot explain this item. ...

This new (revised) expense amount will be factored by + 10% for 1975. This indicates a 1975 operating statement of: Gross Income Projected $20,437.31 x 1.10 = $22,481.04 Plus $100/mos x 12 = $ 1,200.00 $23,681.04 Less Expenses $10,175.22 less — 514.65 609.28 150.69 116.00 $ 8,784.60 x 1.10 = $ 9,663.06 Net Income Projected (1975) $14,017.98 This projected net income, in turn, indicates a property value of: Net Income to Land & Improvments $14,018 Less Income Attributed to Land ($113,700 @ 7%)- 7,959 Income Imputed to Improvements $ 6,059 Capitalize @ 11% (7% plus 4% recapture) $ 55,082 Add Site Value $113,700 Property Value Indicated by Income Approach: $168,782 Say: $168,800 CORRELATION AND FINAL VALUE ESTIMATES Property Value Indicated by Cost Approach $172,200 Property Value Indicated by Income Approach $168,800 The property values found by the two approaches fall within a narrow range of $3,400 or approximately 2%, and both are considered of equal reliability in estimating the property value. ... An examination of the comparables used (finally those of Southward) and the results obtained is very illuminating when done in the following way: Adjustments Comparable Time Location & Physical Total % Total % # (Both) Southward Osland Southward Osland 1) + 6-20-55-14%-49% 2) + 7-10-45-3%-38% 3)-4-10-45-14%-49% 4) +19-10-45 + 9°/o-26% 5)-4-15-50-19%-54% Total Adjustment-41 %-216% Average Adjustment-8.2%-43.2% For the best comparables Southward could put forward, an average adjustment of-8.2% was required to bring about a relationship with the subject property as he saw it. ...

(k) The appellant set up a company called the St-Léonard Flying Club Ltd for training young air pilots. 3.2 The financial statements of Commuter Air Services Ltd for 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, and 1973 reveal the following: 1969 Income $ 7,850.00 Expenditure $36,787.01 Less personal expenses $20,868.61 $15,918.40 Losses $ 8,068.40 1970 Income $ 3,363.50 Expenditure $23,997.04 Less personal expenses $14,486.78 $ 9,510.26 Losses $ 6,146.76 1971 Income $ 4,764.00* Expenditure: General insurance $ 1,940.80 Bank interest and costs $ 2,812.00 Operating expenses $ 7,098.60 Depreciation $ 9,360.00 Wages $ 2,691.10 Travel $ 1,467.89 Rent $ 350.00 Professional fees $ 375.00 $26,095.39 Losses $21,331.39 ‘Included in this amount of $4,764.00 is an amount of $200 for personal use. 1972 1973 Income $ 1,201.50 Expenditure $11,945.70 $17,107.91 Less personal expenses Losses $10,744.20 $17,107.91.. — 3.3 The appellant maintained that he bought this plane in order to obtain an air carrier’s licence. ... It appears from Exhibit A-8 that in 1971 the total of hours was calculated at a rate of $60 an hour. 3.17 It appears from the appellant’s tax returns that in 1969 and 1970 the airplane was used for his personal ends roughly 60% of the time. 3.18 The company’s income and expenditure for the fiscal year from February 28, 1970 to January 31, 1971 were as follows: Income $ 6,045.65 Expenditure $52,716.72 Of the expenditure, wages amounted to $4,900.40 and the remainder was depreciation. 3.19 From October 1969 to January 30, 1970, the company’s income amounted to $430.80 whereas its expenditure was $9,446.21. 3.20 The respondent, through his notice of assessment dated May 27, 1974, disallowed the expenditure of $21,331.39 claimed by the appellant for his seven-passenger plane. 3.21 The appellant appealed to the Minister, filing a notice of objection dated August 22, 1974. 3.22 The Minister notified the appellant on March 7, 1975 that he upheld the assessment of May 27, 1974. 3.23 The appellant submitted a notice of appeal to the Board on June 2, 1975. 4. ... Paragraph 12(1)(a) and subparagraph 139(1)(ae)(i) state: 12(1) In computing income, no deduction shall be made in respect of (a) an outlay or expense except to the extent that it was made or incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income from property or a business of the taxpayer... 139.(1) In this Act, (ae) “personal or living expenses include (i) the expenses of properties maintained by any person for the use or benefit of the taxpayer or any person connected with the taxpayer by blood relationship, marriage or adoption, and not maintained in connection with a business carried on for profit or with a reasonable expectation of profit... 4.2 The Board took notice of the following judgments, several of which were cited by counsel: — Her Majesty the Queen v Douglas C Matthews, [1974] CTC 230; 74 DTC 6193; — Ken Huband v MNR, [1974] CTC 2001; 74 DTC 1039; — MNR v Henry J Freud, [1968] CTC 438; 68 DTC 5279; — Donald Preston McLaws v Her Majesty the Queen, [1976] CTC 15; 76 DTC 6005; — Marcel Crépeau v MNR, 37 Tax ABC 280; 65 DTC 99: — Williamson v MNR, 1 Tax ABC 369; 50 DTC 147; — Alan R Needham v MNR, [1974] CTC 2078; 74 DTC 1057; — Riedle Brewery Ltd v MNR, 1939 SCR; [1938-39] CTC 312; 1 DTC 499-29; — F George Walker v MNR, 76 DTC 1224; — John S Stewart v MNR, [1964] CTC 45; 64 DTC 5023; — Onni Paju & Oiva V Paju v MNR, [1974] CTC 2121; 74 DTC 1087; — Ernest C Hammond v MNR, [1971] CTC 663; 71 DTC 5389; — R C Huffman Construction Company of Canada Ltd v MNR, 39 Tax ABC 172; 65 DTC 597; — William E Newton v MNR, [1969] Tax ABC 1174; 69 DTC 778; — D Carom v MNR, [1977] CTC 2085; 77 DTC 67. 4.3 Considering the appellant’s numerous activities, as shown by the evidence (paragraph 3.1), some would describe him as a “wheeler dealer’, while others would regard him as an “entrepreneur’’ or “captain of industry.’’ ...

Also filed were statements of income and expenses: Exhibit A-11: Buildings owned by appellant — 1977 — Income — $272,000. Exhibit A-12: Warehouses — 1979- gross income — $7,185,000 — — net income — $2,785,000. He explained that the income from the warehouses was much greater than that from the apartments and that they represented 60% of the invested capital; he further explained that in 1975, a very active year, supplementary letters patent had been obtained in order to confirm what had become a reality, namely, their vocation as leasing specialists, and that a new company, Roussin & Frères Ltée, was being set up for the sole purpose of going into the construction business. ...

During the 1975 taxation year, the employer reimbursed an amount of $735.42 to the appellant. 3.06 In filing his income tax return for the 1975 taxation year, the appellant claimed $388.88 as deduction computed as follows: Capital Cost Allowance: $2,541.00 Insurance & Registration: $180.00 Gasoline: $640.80 Oil & Lub & Filters: $ 84.00 Repairs & Maintenance: $180.97 $1,085.77 $3,626.77 Business Miles 4137 x $3,626.77 = $1,124.30 Total Miles 13,352 Less Reimbursement from Consumer and Corporate Affairs $ 735.42 Claimed $ 388.88 The amount of $640.80 for gasoline was calculated as follows on the basis of 15 miles per gallon and 0.72¢ per gallon: 13,352 = 890 x 0.72 = $640.80 15 3.07 Upon reassessment dated November 1, 1976, the respondent disallowed the amount of $388.88. 3.08 A notice of objection was filed on November 23, 1976. 3.09 The respondent answered on March 24, 1977, to confirm the reassessment. 3.10 The appellant lodged an appeal before the Tax Review Board on April 18, 1977. 4. ...

My property is very large — 120 acres — and the income, when it materializes, will be based principally upon the two following sources: (1) the sale of wood — I am Currently seeding; (2) enclosure for the raising and hunting of deer — seeding here as well. For the respondent: — Since the acquisition of this land, no large-scale activity designed to exploit the said land and to establish thereon a commercial or farming business has been undertaken; — the appellant’s sole motivation since the acquisition of this land, and in particular with respect to the 1977 taxation year, is of a purely personal nature; — the said land has never generated any income since it was acquired, in particular during the 1977 taxation year; — in any event, the nature of the expenses incurred does not constitute a valid criterion for establishing the existence of a commercial or farming business on the appellant’s land; — the expenses incurred by the appellant in respect of the said land were not incurred for the purpose or with the reasonable expectation of deriving a profit from the operation of a business. ... The appellant’s income tax return contained the following financial statement: Jacques April 1977 Restricted farming losses — gentleman farmer No income Expenses incurred: Repairs, tools $ 806 Feed and straw 259 Wages and salaries 580 Gasoline, heating oil, oil 832 Contract labour 2,926 Repairs — vehicles 284 Meal surplus ($125) 216 Insurance (truck) 275 Taxes and permits 197 Interest 540 Poultry purchases 212 Livestock purchases 125 Electricity 26 CCA — Vehicles ($11,243) — — Wire fence ($919) — Total $7,278 Allowable for tax purposes: 1st installment — $2,500 $2,500 2nd installment — $4,778 x 50% 2,389 $4,889 Pleading Counsel for the appellant referred to the following decisions: Al Oeming Investments Ltd v MNR, [1972] CTC 2008; 72 DTC 1057; Douglas C Matthews v MNR, [1972] CTC 2643; 72 DTC 1526; Her Majesty The Queen v Douglas C Matthews, [1974] CTC 230; 74 DTC 6193. ...