Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

Hershfield"    Hershfield J.     Citation: 2012 TCC 346 Date: 20121002 Docket: 2009-3904(GST)G       BETWEEN:   SURREY CITY CENTRE MALL LTD.,   Appellant, and     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent.   REASONS FOR JUDGMENT   Hershfield J.   Background   [1]    The Appellant (Mall Co) has appealed an assessment for GST (the “Appeal”) made under subsection 182(1) of the Excise Tax Act (the “ Act ”). ...   [58]    With those comments in mind my analysis will proceed under 7 headings:   A.                ...

The Queen, 2008 DTC 2591, 2008 TCC 58         Docket: 2005-3161(IT)G BETWEEN: BROWNCO INC., Appellant, and   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent.  ____________________________________________________________________ Appeal heard on February 14 and 15, 2007, at Kitchener, Ontario.     ... Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 25th day of January 2008.     “B.Paris” Paris J.           ... Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 25th day of January 2008.       “B.Paris” Paris J.   ...

Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 9th day of February 2004.       “Lucie Lamarre” Lamarre J       Translation certified true on this 31st day of December 2004.       ... The Appellant can therefore request a refund of $59.40 within the time prescribed by section 96 of the Act.             Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 9th day of February 2004.         “Lucie Lamarre” Lamarre J.       ...

The Queen, 2014 DTC 1050 [at at 2917], 2014 TCC 17         Docket: 2011-2341(IT)G BETWEEN: ALLAN O. ... Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 16 th day of January 2014.     “Johanne D’Auray” D'Auray J.         ... PROCHUK, Appellant, and   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent.       REASONS FOR JUDGMENT   D'Auray J.   ...

The Queen, 2007 TCC 500         Docket: 2003-3554(GST)G BETWEEN:   CANADA TRUSTCO MORTGAGE COMPANY,   Appellant,   and   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,   Respondent.   ... Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 12 th day of September 2007.         "Alan Ritchie" Taxing Officer           Citation:2007TCC500 Date:20070 912 Docket: 2003-3554(GST)G BETWEEN:   CANADA TRUSTCO MORTGAGE COMPANY,   Appellant,   and   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,   Respondent.       ... Allan (expert report on the nature and purpose of asset securitization)   Expert Witness Report: 10 hours @ $1,500 per hour            $15,000 Court Attendance:         8 hours @ $1,000 per hour         $  8,000 GST                                                                                   $  1,610 Total                                                                                  $24,610   Loraine D. ...

[Omitted to protect privacy] Date: 01/10/99 FYE:                         98‑12‑31     Subject:                 Management Fees (Comparative)   01/05/94 01/05/95 01/01/96 01/01/97 01/01/98     30/04/95 31/12/95 31/12/96 31/12/97 31/12/98     12 months 8 months 12 months 12 months 12 months                   Revenues $618,837    $489,113    $487,789    $695,407    $841,883 Increase               Management Fees $449,493    $449,181    $353,965    $617,002    $708,931 Increase               Subcontracting $101,064      $31,028      $80,806      $30,772      $86,594                 Net Income   $ 38,036                 0      $37,268      $37,983      $37,126 Constant               Comparison with the return of the corporation that bills these management fees: Les consultants Hébert Bertomeu Inc:   Reported management income:     $449,181      $353,965      $623,002     $712,814               Expenses claimed:     $328,027      $373,904      $367,358     $502,299???             Profit before tax:     $ 123,382 ($18,134)      $ 257,842     $ 210,515       Factual background   [3]      Mr.   ... Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 3rd day of August 2006.     "Pierre Archambault" Archambault J.             ...

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT     Rowe D.J.   [1]        These appeals proceeded on the basis of common evidence. ...   [4]        On consent of counsel for the parties, the following exhibits were filed:   ·         Exhibit R-1       –  Joint Book of Documents;   ·         Exhibit R-2       – Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres Book of Documents;   ·         Exhibit R-3       –  O.I. ...   [113]      The Respondent did not seek costs and none are awarded.               ...

THOMPSON, Appellant, and   THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, Respondent.       Docket: 2010-2344(CPP)   BETWEEN:   BRUCE A. THOMPSON, Appellant, and   THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, Respondent.       ...   [31]          For all these reasons, the appeals are dismissed.     ...

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Tardif, J.T.C.C. [1]      This is an appeal concerning the 1997, 1998 and 1999 taxation years. [2]      The assessments under appeal were made on the basis of the following assumptions of fact:           [TRANSLATION] (a)         the appellant was a full-time professor at the faculty of education at l'Université de Sherbrooke (hereinafter "University") during the entire period in issue; (b)         the appellant's position as a professor entailed four areas of responsibility: teaching, research, participation in university life and community service; (c)                as an employee at l'Université de Sherbrooke, the appellant was generally required to perform the duties of his position at his employer's place of business, l'Université de Sherbrooke; (d)         among other things, the appellant conducted research in the field of ethnomusicology; (e)         in the context of a so-called "business", the appellant collected children's songs and instrumental pieces from various communities around the world and, according to the appellant, [TRANSLATION] "the product consists of records of ethnic children's music the purpose of which is the preservation of a universal heritage and not the making of profit" (see Annex A); (f)          the target markets were libraries, schools, ethnomusicology specialists and families; (g)         the appellant and the publisher, the ARION corporation, have been bound by a contract since May 10, 1993; (h)         under that contract, the appellant assigned to the publisher exclusive rights to the audio recordings of works in the "Chants des enfants du monde" collection for a ten-year period and in return receives royalties, the terms of which are described in the said contract; (i)          promotion and advertising of the records are the responsibility of the ARION record company of Paris, France; (j)          the statement of income and expenses for the appellant's so-called "business" indicates the following amounts:                                                     1997                  1998                  1999 Gross revenue                         $ 3,500             $ 3,900             $ 3,590 Expenses: Advertising                                                             726 Delivery                                                                                        1,631 Fuel                                                300                     60    Maintenance, repairs                       994 Motor vehicles                    278 Office expenses                              286 Supplies                                       1,428                                           395 Honorariums                                    93                     109                    111 Rent                                                                       195 Travel expenses                            4,800                 2,024                 8,088 Translation, studio                                                 1,480                 1,032 Parking                                50 Partial total                              $ 8,229             $ 4,594             $ 11,257 Depreciation                              $ 4,356             $ 5,429             $ 1,141 Total expenses                        $ 12,585            $ 10,023            $ 12,398 Net total                                  ($9,085)            ($6,123)            ($8,807) (k)         the appellant did not receive any grants from the University during the period between 1991 and 1999; (l)          according to the appellant, if the royalty revenues increased to the point of covering or exceeding his research expenses, the University would use the surplus to establish special research funds, and it was clear to him that the salaries received for his research projects would be partly covered by those royalty revenues; (m)        there is an employer-employee relationship between the University and the appellant for the following reasons: ·         the appellant is a salaried employee and his income is divided over 12 months with 26 pay periods; ·         aside from his one month of annual summer vacation, the appellant must inform the University authorities of his non-teaching activities in order to obtain authorization from them to pursue his activities; ·         the dean of the University decides on the appellant's workload; ·         Mario Laforest, the dean of the faculty of education at l'Université de Sherbrooke, indicated in a letter sent to the Minister that the appellant's research in ethnomusicology is an integral part of his work as a professor; ·         the appellant must submit an annual work plan to be approved at a department meeting (approval must be made and forwarded to the appellant by May 25 of each year); ·         no changes to the work description can be made during the year without approval; ·         the appellant must make an annual report to the University authorities concerning all of his research activities; (n)         according to the dean, Mario Laforest, [TRANSLATION] "while Professor Corpataux's work is very important and is highly original, it nonetheless is not traditional in nature, which would make it eligible for funding from the usual research organizations"; (o)         according to the dean, Mario Laforest, [TRANSLATION] "the period of unprecedented budget cuts that Quebec universities have experienced in recent years has ruled out any significant financial support for the work being carried out by this professor. ... For the rest, he had to cover the expenses incurred out of his own pocket"; (p)         the appellant has reported the following business income and losses since the beginning of this research activity: YEAR              GROSS                        TOTAL                        NET                         REVENUES                EXPENSES                 LOSSES 1999                 $    3,590                        $12,397                        ($ 8,807   ) 1998                     3,900                         10,023                         (   6,123   ) 1997                     3,500                         12,585                         (   9,085   ) 1996                     5,000                            8,502                          (   3,502   ) 1995                     5,775                         11,767                         (   5,992   ) 1994                     3,000                            8,946                          (   5,946   ) 1993                       855                          1,986                           (   1,136   ) 1992                     1,300                            3,776                          (   2,476   ) 1991                       850                             1,655                          (      855) Total                $ 27,715                        $ 71,637                        ($43,922) (q)         the appellant did not conduct any market studies to verify his project's profitability and did not produce any specific plan of action to make his research activities profitable; (r)         the appellant failed to demonstrate that the expenses claimed for the years in issue in connection with his research activities were incurred or made in order to turn a profit or with a reasonable expectation of generating an income from them; (s)         the appellant's research work is not one of the artistic activities described in paragraph 8(1)(q) of the Act; (t)          during the 2000 taxation year the appellant received for the first time a $2,400 grant from the faculty of education at l'Université de Sherbrooke. [3]      The appellant admitted all of the facts with the exception of subparagraphs 6(c), 6(l), 6(n) and 6(r), which are reproduced below for better reading: [TRANSLATION] (c)                 as an employee at l'Université de Sherbrooke, the appellant was generally required to perform the duties of his position at his employer's place of business, l'Université de Sherbrooke; (l)          according to the appellant, if the royalty revenues increased to the point of covering or exceeding his research expenses, the University would use the surplus to establish special research funds, and it was clear to him that the salaries received for his research projects would be partly covered by those royalty revenues; (n)         according to the dean, Mario Laforest, [TRANSLATION] "while Professor Corpataux's work is very important and is highly original, it nonetheless is not traditional in nature, which would make it eligible for funding from the usual research organizations"; (r)         the appellant failed to demonstrate that the expenses claimed for the years in issue in connection with his research activities were incurred or made in order to turn a profit or with a reasonable expectation of generating an income from them; [4]      The evidence, comprised of the appellant's testimony, revealed that the content of subparagraphs 6(c) and 6(l) was accurate. [5]      The appellant's explanations convinced the Court that his research and work was highly worthwhile. ... However, since the required information pertains essentially to the responsibilities in the area of research, I will reproduce articles 12.01, 12.03 and 12.06. 12.01    The position of professor entails four areas of responsibility:             (a) teaching;             (b) research;             (c) participation in university life;             (d) community service.                   ... 12.06    A professor's annual workload includes activities in each of the four areas of responsibility indicated in paragraph 12.01.            ... ...

Hogan” Hogan J.         Citation: 2012 TCC 376 Date: 20121025 Docket: 2010-3660(IT)I BETWEEN: 1726437 ONTARIO INC. o/a AIRMAX TECHNOLOGIES, Appellant, and   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent.       ... [2]   [15]         I will use the above criteria to evaluate the appellant’s SR&ED claim.   1.       ... Hogan   DATE OF JUDGMENT:                  October 25, 2012   APPEARANCES:   Agents for the Appellant: Julie Bond Mauricio Haliska Counsel for the Respondent: Christop her Bartlett   COUNSEL OF RECORD:          For the Appellant:                             Name:                                                   Firm:          For the Respondent:                  Myles J. ...