Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

Reasons for Judgment Bowman, A.C.J. [1] This appeal is from an assessment under section 227.1 of the Income Tax Act against the appellant as a director and officer of Can-Am Windows & Doors Manufacturing Inc. ...

They include – (a) persons who pay the $50 without going to court, (b) persons who pay after going to court, (c) persons who are towed. ...

There was no acknowledgement of this letter by the Minister at any time, what we will call a ” letter of instruction”. ...

Clearly, this means that it is presumed that the taxpayer uses the automobile on average for 1,000 kilometres per month or 12,000 kilometres per year for personal purposes, or, as it states, (otherwise than in the performance of the duties of the taxpayer's office or employment)”, unless he “ establishes otherwise in prescribed form”. ...

(orally): — I think I’m in a position to render judgment. This is an appeal from reassessments for 1992 and 1993 of the Appellant, in which she was denied the disability tax credit provided under Section 118.3 of the Income Tax Act. ...

Touchie & Associates Ltd. were appointed Trustee’s of the estate of Douglas John Heavyside by the Official Receiver on October 28th, 1993, a copy of which is annexed hereto and marked as Schedule “C”. 4. ...

.: — This matter was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia on March 13, 1996 pursuant to the General Procedure of this Court. ...

In particular, the Minister took the following facts for granted in order to make this notice of child tax benefit: (a) the appellant lived with her de facto spouse, Charles Lasnier, during the 1992 taxation year; (b) the net incomes of each of the de facto spouses were reported in their income tax returns for the 1992 taxation year and were as follows: (i) appellant: $29,204 (ii) Charles Lasnier: $30,208 Total net income: $59,412 (c) taking into account that the total net income of the de facto spouses serves as the basis for calculating the child tax benefit, the Minister revised the said child tax benefit to a total sum of $194.45 for the year, that is to say for the months from July 1993 to June 1994, calculated in the following manner: Basic benefit for two children: $1,869 Less: Reduction of benefit Net family income: $59,412 Less: Basic amount: $25,921 Net family income exceeding basic amount: $33,491 Reduction of benefit 5% of last amount: $1,674.45 Revised benefit: $ 194.45 6. ...

In reassessing the appellant for the 1991 and 1992 taxation years by notices of reassessment dated August 31, 1994, the Minister added the following reasonable standby charges for an automobile and benefits in respect of the operation of an automobile to the appellant’s income for 1991 and 1992: 1991 1991— Reasonable standby charge $4,422.00 $ 9,648.00 Benefit re auto operation S222LÛÛ Total addition to income $6.643.00 In so reassessing the apellant, the Minister made the following assumptions of fact: (a) the facts hereinbefore stated and admitted; (b) during the 1991 and 1992 taxation years the appellant was the controlling shareholder as well as an employee of Standby Travel Inc. ...

Now gentlemen there is no difference for 1991 though is there, because ’91 just deals with — Mr. ...