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

He also maintained school horses of his own for the purpose of providing equitation lessons. 3.03 The income and expenses for the years 1972 to 1977 were as follows: Gross Income Expenses Losses 1972 $13,023.32 $26,404.68 ($13,381.36) 1973 $21,748.05 $31,111.47 ($ 9,363.42) 1974 $24,974.87 $31,992.55 ($ 7,017.68) 1975 $ 5,696.50 $21,148.40 ($15,451.90) 1976 NIL $18,202.38 ($18,202.38) 1977 NIL $10,506.00 ($10,506.00) (Exhibit R-1) 3.04 The gross income is detailed as follows: Rent Sundry Total Total 1972 $12,679.00 $ 344.32 $13,023.32 1973 $20,256.86 $1,491.19 $21,748.05 1974 $22,739.58 $2,235.29 $24,974.87 1975 $ 5,681.50 $ 15.00 $ 5,696.50 (Exhibit R-1) 3.05 On June 4, 1973, the Government of the Province of Ontario announced its “Parkway Belt” proposals, and the farm owned by the Hibberds was included in the Parkway Belt area. ... However, the main expenses claimed for the years under appeal were as follows: 1976 1977 1977 Car and truck expenses (75%) $2,049.21 $1,409 Insurance $1,222.00 $1,324 Rent $1,810.00 $2,720 Professional services $ 560.00 $ 908 Phone $ 667.29 $ 574 Capital Cost Allowance of Truck and Tractors $2,068.16 — (Exhibit R-1) 3.13 Mr and Mrs Hibberd testified that after 1975, they still intended to operate a horse boarding venture somewhere else. ... 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 paragraphs 18(1)(a), 18(1)(h) and subsection 248(1) (definition of “farming” and “personal or living expenses”). ...

Minister of National Revenue, [1981] CTC 2302, 81 DTC 288 D E Taylor: [Translation] —This appeal which was heard in the city of Montreal (Quebec) on June 11, 1980, was brought following tax assessments in which the Minister of National Revenue refused to allow the taxpayer to deduct the following amounts, which he had paid to his wife or ex-wife Mrs Lucille Dubois, as alimony: 1970 — $5,560 1971 — $6,260 1972 — $6,260 1973 — $6,260 1974 — $4,160 1975 — $5,075 The only point at issue is whether these amounts were paid in accordance with a written settlement and/or a written agreement. ... This letter and agreement, which were produced as exhibit 1-1, read as follows: BARD, L'HEUREUX, PHILIPPON & TOURIGNY AVOCATS — BARRISTERS SAM SCHWARZ BARD, QC SUITE 309 CLAIRE L’HEUREUX-DUBE FLORENCE BUILDING JACQUES PHILIPPON 771 EAST, RUE ST-JOSEPH CHRISTINE TOURIGNY QUEBEC (2) CANADA June 26, 1969 Mrs. ... Yours truly, BARD, L’HEUREUX, PHILIPPON & TOURIGNY By: (Signed) Cl CLD/mp AGREEMENT AGREEMENT entered into in Quebec City, this day of June, 1969 BETWEEN DAME LUCILLE CHAMBERLAND, hereinafter referred to as, THE WIFE AND MR JACQUES CHAMBERLAND, hereinafter referred to as THE HUSBAND 1. ...

The amounts at issue, and the appellant’s contentions regarding them are to be found in the Notice of Appeal: (1) Interest, R Brown — 1974 — $2,600; 1975 — $2,600; 1976 — $2,575. ... Findings Dealing first with Item (3) — the Greenberg Farm — the testimony of the appellant, his business history, and the documentation provided point to only one conclusion — that the property was acquired for the purpose of sale, hopefully in the appellant’s mind after subdivision and development, but for sale nevertheless. ... For Item (2) — the Mortgage Reserve — I recognize that there would be some difficulty in defining “reasonable” for purposes of the section of the Act under review, and this was emphasized by the agent for the appellant. ...

On December 2, 1975, CCIG placed an order for a Government of Canada bond bearing interest at 9 Z> % per annum, maturing on June 15, 1994, for a total price of $100,502.74. ... As a result of the above transactions, the amounts at issue were included in the appellant’s tax return by using the following calculations: Effect on Each income in member’s the year portion ended Total /5 1975 1976 Interest income —received $4,750.00 $ 950.00 $ 950.00 $ 0.00 —received on sale 780.82 156.16 83.29 72.87 $5,530.82 $1,106.16 $1,033.29 $ 72.87 Interest expense — incurred on purchase of bond $4,502.74 $ 900.55 $ 900.55 $ 0.00 —bank loan interest 926.15 185.23 121.34 63.89 $5,428.89 $1,085.78 $1,021.89 $ 63.89 Net Interest Income 101.93 20.38 11.40 8.98 Gain on sale of bond Proceeds $97,500.00 Cost $96,000.00 Delivery Costs 31.35 96,031.35 1,468.65 293.73 0.00 293.73 Total gain on invest ment in bond $1,570.58 $ 314,11 $ 11.40 $302.71 Contentions The appellant submitted: —There was a bona fide acquisition of the said bonds. ... At the time the broker purchased the said bonds on behalf of CCIG, CCIG had a legal liability to the broker for the amount of the purchase price plus accrued interest. — Each member of the club, including the appellant, was jointly and severally liable for this obligation. ...

Sale Location Location Sale Sale Lot Lot Selling # Date Date Size Size Price St Vincent Township 1 Part Lot 3, Cone. 1 1970.46 acres $ 2,995 2 Part Lot 3, Cone. 1 1970.46 acres $ 2,695 3 Part Lot 10, Cone. 1 1970.05 acres $ 3,320 4 Part Lot 10, Cone. 2 1971.05 acres $ 3,100 5 Part Lot 10, Cone. 2 1970.46 acres $ 2,845 6 Part Lot 10, Cone. 2 1970.68 acres $ 2,695 7 Part Lot 10, Cone. 2 1972 2 acres $10,000 8 Part Lot 11, Cone. 2 1970.09 acres $ 2,500 9 Part Lot 11, Cone. 2 1969.09 acres $ 2,000 10 Part Lot 11, Cone. 3 1972.67 acres $ 7,750 11 Part Lot 11, Cone. 3 1973.67 acres $ 8,500 12 Part Lot 2, Cone. 4 1969 1.03 acres $ 2,500 13 Part Lot 10, Cone. 5 1969.57 acres $ 2,700 14 Part Lot 10, Cone. 5 1970.57 acres $ 2,700 VALUATION Sale Location Location Sale Lot Lot Selling Date Size Size Price 15 Part Lot 18, Cone. 11 1970.46 acres $ 2,000 16 Collingwood Twp. 1971 1.67 acres $ 5,000 17 Collingwood Twp. 1971 1 acre $ 6,000 18 Collingwood Twp. 1970.96 acres $ 5,300 19 Collingwood Twp. 1972.09 acres $ 7,500 20 Collingwood Twp. 1970.84 acres $ 3,695 21 Collingwood Twp. 1972.84 acres $ 5,500 22 Collingwood Twp. 1972 1.36 acres $ 6,000 The above referenced sales represent vacant residential building lots located throughout St Vincent Township, as well as the north end of Collingwood Township. ... Lots 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 36 1 4,500.00 per Lot or: 8 Lots @ 4,500.00 $ 36,000 Lots 1-5, 15, 17-19, 24-31, 33-35, 37-40 $ 3,500.00 per Lot, or: 24 Lots @ 13,500.00 $ 84,000 TOTAL $120,000 Respectfully submitted, D W Egerton, A.I.M.A., A.A.C.I. ... I should here like to cite Exhibit A-12 which was filed by the appellant which clearly sets forth the Revenue Canada V-Day values, Mr Egerton’s V-Day values and the year and price each lot was sold: ELWOOD F HOLMES — TAX APPEAL Lot Sales Revenue Canada Egerton Year Sold Reassessed V-Day Values V-Day Values Sale Price 1 $ 690 $ 3,500 76/$20,000 2 690 3,500 77/11,000 4 690 3,500 75.$10,000 5 690 3,500 74/$7,500 6 $1,790 4,500 74/$4,500 12 3,499 4,500 74/$4,500 13 3,499 4,500 74/$5,000 15 576 3,500 74/$4,500 17 576 3,500 75/$8,000 18 576 3,500 75/$10,000 19 576 3,500 77/$10,000 25 1,544 3,500 76/$11,00 26 1,554 3,500 77/$11,000 30 1,140 3,500 76/$11,000 31 1,140 3,500 76/$10,000 33 1,448 3,500 74/$5,000 34 1,448 3,500 74/$5,000 35 1,538 3,500 74/$5,000 36 3,890 4,500 74/$5,000 37 1,440 3,500 74/$5,000 38 1,440 3,500 74/$5,000 39 1,440 3,500 74/$6,000 40 1,440 3,500 74/$6,000 Totals 23 lots $33,324 $84,500 $169,000 Average Value per Lot $ 1,449 $ 3,674 Average Sale Prices per Lot: 1974 (13 lots ★ $68,000) $ 5,231 1975 (3 lots ★ $28,000) $ 9,333 1976 (4 lots ★ $41,000) $10,250 1977 (3 lots * $37,000) $10,667 Notes: 1. ...

According to the appellant, he would have had to have 2 “Chevettes” to cover the distance he did. 3.12 According to the appellant’s tax returns, his net income was as follows: 1971 nil 1972 $ 242.00 1973 $3,268.92 1974 $2,288.24 1971 $ 521.25 1972 $3,186.14 1973 $2,714.54 1974 $4,050.88 3.13 His wife, until her death in 1973, worked and helped the appellant with common expenses. ... Because of the reasons given, the Board considers the following figures reasonable: 1972 1973 1973 1974 1974 Living expenses $5,100 $5,100 $5,100 Entertainment allowance $ 900 $1,080 $1,250 Car expenses: gasoline $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 maintenance $ 750 $ 750 $ 750 depreciation nil $1,950 $1,365 4.6 If the taxpayer had collected all his supporting documents, he would probably have arrived at these figures. ... Therefore, the Board feels that it is fair to reduce the expenses by 50% (the case cited above reduced it by 70%). 4.7 Whereas the claimed expenses were considered excessive in the following amounts: 1972 1973 1973 1974 1974 Living expenses $1,620 $2,150 $2,400 Entertainment allowance $ 600 $.720 $ 750 Car expenses: gasoline $ 642 $1,065 $1,450 maintenance $ 450 $ 750 $1,050 Whereas 50% of the expenses considered reasonable, allowed above, equals approximately 30% of the total expenses, and this was allowed by the respondent; the Board accordingly concludes that there is no reason to change the notices of reassessment established by the respondent. 5. ...

Les états financiers des quatre compagnies de M Bernèche ont été déposés comme exhibits: Les Meubles de Maskinongé Inc: au 31 avril 1971 Exhibit A-9 au 31 octobre 1971 Exhibit A-5 Les Chaises Maskinongé Inc: au 31 avril 1971 Exhibit A-10 au 31 octobre 1971 Exhibit A-6 Maskinongé Furniture Transport Inc: au 31 décembre 1970 Exhibit A-7 Les Produits Maskin Inc: au 31 décembre 1970 Exhibit A-8 Ces états financiers démontrent entre autres: a) que le résultat des opérations signifie des pertes au 31/10/71 — pour Les Meubles de Maskinongé Inc ($ 84,173.01) — pour Les Chaises Maskinongé Inc ($ 2,024.76) des bénéfices au 31/12/70 — pour Les Produits Maskin Inc $ 1,008.17 — pour Maskinongé Furniture Transport Inc $ 25.68 b) que les bénéfices non répartis à la fin de la dernière période s’élèvent à — pour Les Meubles de Maskinongé Inc $ 52,288.81 — pour Les Chaises Maskinongé Inc ($ 396.05) — pour Les Produits Maskin Inc $ 9,112.22 — pour Maskinongé Furniture Transport Inc $ 18,610.41 c) que les accroissements et réductions de fonds de roulement s’établissent ainsi a la fin de la dernière période — Les Meubles de Maskinongé Inc ($100,623.95) — Les Chaises Maskinongé Inc $ 3,459.91 d) que les disponibilités, les exigibilités et les dettes à long terme à la fin de la dernière période s’établissent ainsi: Disponibilités Exigibilités D.L. Terme Les Meubles de Maskinongé Inc $ 790,289.21 $ 824,301.37 $100,971.55 Les Chaises Maskinongé Inc $ 205,578.43 $ 181,243.90 $ 57,772.92 Les Produits Maskin Inc $ 20,524.52 S$ 9,323.43 Nil Maskinongé Furniture Transport Inc $ 25,926.38 $ 18,225.93 $ 27,156.42 TOTAL $1,042,318.54 $1,033,094.63 $185,900.89 e) que le coût du bâtiment, du terrain, de l’équipement et de machinerie au 31 octobre 1971 s’élève à $618,192.20 et que la valeur non dépréciée est de $240,022.52. ... Front <& Simcoe Ltd c MRN, [1960] CTC 123; 60 DTC 1081; 15. Sa Majesté la Reine c Lagueux & Frères Inc, [1974[CTC 687; 74 DTC 6569; 16. ...

In assessing the appellant for his 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973 taxation years, the respondent relied, inter alia, on the following presumptions of fact: (a) during the years in question, the appellant operated a transport business and was a partner in the operation of a bar in the city of La Salle; (b) the appellant did not file tax returns for the years in question within the time limits specified in the Income Tax Act; (c) on May 8, 1975, the appellant was required to file tax returns for the said years; (d) following this requirement to file, the appellant filed returns for 1970 and 1971 on July 4, 1975 and returns for 1972 and 1973 on July 22, 1975; (e) the appellant reported the following amounts of taxable income in computing his income for each of these years: Year Taxable amount 1970 $ 9,068.50 1971 $23,911.32 1972 $53,184.20 1973 $55,833.81 (f) the taxpayer failed to include his share of the income from the operation of the bar in the taxation years 1970 and 1971; $3,577.98 for 1970 and $7,616.94 for 1971; (g) the taxpayer therefore made a reconciliation of the appellant’s income and determined that his taxable income for the years in question was as follows: Year Taxable amount 1970 $11,546.48 1971 $29,828.26 1972 $53,184.20 1973 $55,833.81 (h) in a notice of assessment dated February 13,1976, the respondent applied a penalty under s 56(1) and s 163(1) of the Act, on the amounts of tax payable for each of the years in question: Year Tax payable Penalty (50%) 1970 $ 1,770.97 $ 885.48 1971 $ 5,829.06 $ 2,914.53 1972 $13,770.87 $ 6,885.44 1973 $14,695.09 $ 7,347.54 (i) the appellant wilfully attempted to evade payment of the tax payable by him by failing to file tax returns for the years in question. ...

The amounts claimed and disallowed in respect of each relative are set out in the following tables: 1977 Taxation Year Claimed Disallowed Sheik M Allim (Father in Guyana) $ 540.00 $ 540.00 Gladys Allim (Mother in Guyana) 415.00 415.00 Arlene Allim (Sister in England) 750.00 750.00 Mickford Durgana (Brother-in-law) 780.00 780.00 Sanchari Budram (Mother-in-law) 780.00 — Venoomattie Budram (Sister-in-law) 780.00 — $4,045.00 $2,485.00 2,485.00 Amount allowed by Respondent $1,500.00 1978 Taxation Year Claimed Disallowed Sheik M Allim $ 560.00 $ 560.00 Gladys Allim 430.00 430.00 Arlene Allim 840.00 840.00 Sanchari Budram 840.00 — Venoomattie Budram 840.00 — David Mallay (Cousin) 840.00 840.00 $4,350.00 $2,670.00 $2,670.00 Amount allowed by Respondent $1,680.00 1979 Taxation Year Claimed Disallowed Sheik M Allim $ 900.00 $ 900.00 Gladys Allim 910.00 910.00 — Disability Deduction 1,660.00 1,660.00 $3,470.00 $3,470.00 3,470.00 Amount allowed by Respondent 0 1980 Taxation Year Claimed Disallowed Sheik M Allim $ 990.00 $990.00 Gladys Allim 990.00 990.00 — Disability Deduction 1,810.00 1,810.00 $3,790.00 $3,790.00 3,790.00 Amount allowed by Respondent d) 3.02 In sum, the appellant is the son of Sheik M and Gladys Allim, the brother of Arlene Allim, the brother-in-law of Mickford Durgana and the cousin of David Mallay. 3.03 At the beginning of the hearing, the appellant informed the Board that he did not appeal the claim for his cousin David Mallay for his 1978 taxation year. ... Law — Cases at Law — Analysis 4.01 Law The main provisions of the Income Tax Act involved in the present case are paragraphs 109(1)(e) and (f), 110(1)(e) and subsection 252(2). ... The Board cannot take these facts into consideration. 4.03.2 Mickford Durgana — 1977 — $780 On this point with the adduced evidence, the Board has no hesitation to dismiss the appeal. ...

In computing his net income for his 1974 to 1977 taxation years, the Appellant claimed in deduction of his income capital cost allowance (class 8) in the following amounts; 1974 — $5,555 1975 — 4,739 1976 — 3,906 1977 — 5,071 4. ... In making the said reassessments, the Respondent disallowed in part the deduction of capital cost allowance (class 8) as claimed by the Appellant in the following amounts; Amounts Amounts Amounts Year Claimed Allowed Disallowed 1974 $5,555 $ 981 $4,574 1975 4,739 1,080 3,659 1976 3,906 979 2,927 1977 5,071 2,730 2,341 and determined the Appellant’s income in the following manner; 1974 1975 1976 1977 $ $ $ $ Toral income previously assessed 27,636.00 35,874.00 40,112.00 39,096.00 Add Personal portion of automobile expenses 1,450.50 11,594.44 1,729.01 3,000.00 Taxable capital gain — 1,323.50 1,323.50 1,324.00 CCA disallowed 4,574.00 3,659.00 2,927.00 2,341.00 Revised total income 33,660.50 42,450.94 46,091.51 45,761.00 5. ...