Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

This Article establishes “... a mutual covenant to apply as between each country whatever foreign tax credit provision the respective domestic laws of each country might from time to time adopt....”.* [1] The respondent, in making the assessment in issue, has not imposed on the appellant any more burdensome tax than that which would be imposed on any citizen of Canada in like circumstances. ...

To set up a theoretical situation, the Court considered the problem facing a taxpayer who received an amount of income on December 30 of a taxation year — which amount was in excess of 25 per cent of his total income (presuming tax had been deducted at the source from the balance). ...

If any products were lost or damaged Mr Gilling was personally liable — not a normal employer-employee relationship. ...

It was held by Muldoon, J, of the Federal Court — Trial Division, that: The taxpayer’s decision to minimize expenses by establishing his office in his home rather than at another place was entirely a matter of his own business judgment and was perfectly reasonable. ...

He was represented by Mr Yurik (Yurik) a chartered accountant employed by Touche Ross & Co. ...

Appeal dismissed. 1 ’. Notices of Appeal were also filed against nil assessments for 1979 and 1980 taxation years. ...

The taxpayer-APPELLANT now appeals to the Board from the assessment on the ground of error in Law by the Minister in the interpretation of the Income Tax Act, and related statutes mentioned below, more particularly in (a) misreading section 8(1) of the Act “... there may be deducted...”, as if it said “shall” instead of “may”, (b) overlooking section 28 of the Interpretation Act (1970 RSC 1-23) to the effect that “may” is to be construed as permissive ‘‘shall” is to be construed as imperative, (c) imposing his erroneous interpretation on his Department by issuing Interpretation Bulletins IT-124R3 and IT-124R4, as well as Form T2097 (especially Area VI thereof), (d) contradicting his own interpretation of the same words “salary or wages” in respect to the employer’s contribution under S 147(8) of “20% of the salary or wages” as exemplified in his Interpretation Bulletin IT-363 (paragraph 3) which expressly states that “Section 8 deductions are ignored for purposes of this calculation”, (e) contradicting his own interpretation of the same words in respect to employer’s deductions or withholding at the source under s 153(l)(a) from “salary or wages”, as exemplified in Regulation 100 and tables of deductions, which are always based on (gross) “salary or wages”, and (f) failing to consider the difference in the latest dates relevant to the deductions, namely “60 days after the end of the year” in s. 146(5) in respect to the 20% deduction and “on or before April 30, in the next year” in S 150(l)(d) in respect to the Section 8 deductions. ...

The appellant was an extremely competent person and argued quite forcefully that the tax base upon which interest is assessed should be the difference of the excess over the original tax base — that is to say, the difference between 75 per cent with a tax deducted at source where there is a small difference over the 25 per cent instalment payment. ...

At the time of employment in addition to other remuneration a living-out allowance was agreed upon and the appellant completed a “Declaration of Exemption — Employment at Special Work Site’’ form known as form TD4. ...

In support of this statement, I need not refer to more than the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Johnston v MNR, [1948] CTC 195; 3 DTC 1182, and the decision of the Federal Court — Trial Division, in Kit-Win Holdings (1973) Limited v The Queen [1981] CTC 43; 81 DTC 5030. ...