Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

" [8] At page 5029, he said: "... I interpret Lord Wright's test not as the fourfold one it is often described as being but rather as a four-in-one test with emphasis always retained on what Lord Wright, supra, calls 'the combined force of the whole scheme of operations', even while the usefulness of the four subordinate criteria is acknowledged. ...

(o/a Coach Restaurant & Saloon), for the period July 17, 1995 to March 8, 1996. ...

The company acquired the Malibu Bar & Grill in September 1989 and the Appellant advanced the amount of $100,000 from personal cash reserves of her spouse to the company for the purpose of completing the purchase transaction. ...

At that time, they raised capital and became shareholders in proportion to the capital they had raised or guaranteed, as follows: Norman Hodgins- 40% Bruce McKichan- 35% John Arnold   - 25% The shareholdings have remained the same except that Norman Hodgins transferred his 40% ownership to his son, Doug Hodgins. ...

The appellant claimed a deduction for alimony of $12,824.28 for 1992, $12,182.77 for 1993 and $4,534.44 for 1994. [2] The respondent issued a reassessment dated September 30, 1996, reducing the appellant’s deduction for alimony by $8,924 for 1992, $8,282 for 1993 and $2,884 for 1994. [3] The respondent alleged the following facts in support of her reassessment: [TRANSLATION] (a) the appellant and France Mailhot (hereinafter “his former spouse”) separated pursuant to an interim consent dated November 12, 1991, that was ratified by the Court on November 12, 1991 (hereinafter “the consent”); (b) the consent required the appellant to pay alimony of $75 a week for his former spouse and his children, which was to be payable in advance and indexed in accordance with the Act; (c) the consent required the appellant to pay the taxes, mortgage and electricity for the matrimonial home; (d) the Minister disallowed the appellant’s deduction of the expenses referred to in paragraph (c) above for the years at issue because it was not shown in the consent that the payments thereof would be deductible by the appellant under subsection 60.1(2) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter “the Act ”) and taxable in the hands of the recipient, his former spouse, under subsection 56.1(2) of the Act. [4] Only the appellant testified. ...

There may be deducted in computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year such of the following amounts as are applicable: b) Alimony payments – an amount paid by the taxpayer in the year as alimony or other allowance payable on a periodic basis for the maintenance of the recipient, children of the recipient or both the recipient and the children, if the taxpayer, because of the breakdown of the taxpayer’s marriage, was living separate and apart from the spouse or former spouse to whom the taxpayer was required to make the payment at the time the payment was made and throughout the remainder of the year and the amount was paid under a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal or under a written agreement. 60.1: Maintenance payments. (1) Where a decree, order, judgment or written agreement described in paragraph 60(b) or (c), or any variation thereof, provides for the periodic payment of an amount by a taxpayer (a) to a person who is (i) the taxpayer’s spouse or former spouse, or (ii) where the amount is paid under an order made by a competent tribunal in accordance with the laws of a province, an individual of the opposite sex who is the natural parent of a child of the taxpayer, or (b) for the benefit of the person, children in the custody of the person or both the person and those children, the amount or any part thereof, when paid, shall be deemed for the purposes of paragraphs 60(b) and (c) to have been paid to and received by that person. ...

Evidently they believed that they had reached that level of maturity in 1993 — they were well into their twenties. [21] Mr. ...

(b) Alimony payments — an amount paid by the taxpayer in the year as alimony or other allowance payable on a periodic basis for the maintenance of the recipient, children of the recipient or both the recipient and the children, if the taxpayer, because of the breakdown of the taxpayer’s marriage, was living separate and apart from the spouse or former spouse to whom the taxpayer was required to make the payment at the time the payment was made and throughout the remainder of the year and the amount was paid under a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal or under a written agreement.... [11] The courts have been consistent when it comes to the application of paragraph 60(b) of the Income Tax Act. [12] The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in Hodson v. ...

Analysis [10] The definition of "eligible individual" in section 122.6 of the Act reads as follows: "eligible individual" in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time (a) resides with the qualified dependant, (b) is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant, (c) is resident in Canada, (d) is not described in paragraph 149(1)(a) or (b), and (e) is, or whose cohabiting spouse is, a Canadian citizen or a person who (i) is a permanent resident (within the meaning assigned by the Immigration Act), (ii) is a visitor in Canada or the holder of a permit in Canada (within the meanings assigned by the Immigration Act) who was resident in Canada throughout the 18 month period preceding that time, or (iii) was determined before that time under the Immigration Act, or regulations made under that Act, to be a Convention refugee, and for the purposes of this definition, (f) where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant's female parent, the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed to be the female parent, (g) the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and (h) prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing.    ...

The Appellant was assessed as a director of Franklyn Sprinkler & Fire Service Ltd. ...