Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 2nd day of May 2008.       “L.M. Little” Little J.       Citation: 2008TCC264 Date: 20080502 Docket: 2004-1650(IT)G       BETWEEN:   GARRET MADELL,   Appellant, and   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,   Respondent.   ...   [20]     When the Appellant filed his income tax returns for the 1997 and 1998 taxation years he deducted the following amounts:               1997   1998 Limited Partnership Losses disallowed   $ 80,750   $ 55,677 Prepaid royalty expense disallowed   $ 85,038     Licence expenses disallowed   $   1,488         $167,276   $ 55,677   [21]     By Notices of Reassessment dated March 13, 2000 the amounts referred to in paragraph [20] above were disallowed by the Minister ...

Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 27th day of May 2013.       “Robert J. Hogan” Hogan J.           Citation: 2013 TCC 115 Date: 20130527 Docket: 2012-1182(IT)I BETWEEN: FOLASADE ABIOLA, appellant, and   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, respondent.   ... Hogan   DATE OF JUDGMENT:                  May 27, 2013   APPEARANCES:   For the appellant: The appellant herself Counsel for the respondent: Paige Atkinson   COUNSEL OF RECORD:          For the appellant:                             Name:                                                   Firm:          For the respondent:                   William F. ...

McArthur” McArthur J.         Citation: 2008 TCC 600 Date: 20081114 Docket: 2007-2603(EI) BETWEEN: ROD ROY SKI SCHOOLS LTD., Appellant, and   THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, Respondent.     ...   [4]           2005 FCA 334.   [5]           2003 FCA 453.   [6]           2004 CCI  55 ...   [7]           87 DTC 5025 (F.C.A.).   [8]           [2001] 4 C.T.C. 139 (S.C.C ...

Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 19th day of May 2009.       “Paul Bédard” Bédard J.   ... Appellant’s position   [3]               The relevant parts of the appellant’s written submissions merit citing.     ...     [11]          For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.     Signed at Ottawa, Canada, on this 19th day of May 2009.       ...

The Queen, 2013 TCC 303 (Informal Procedure)         Docket: 2010-478(IT)I BETWEEN: JUDY SACKANEY, Appellant, and   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent.   ... Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of October 2013.   “B.Paris” Paris J.             ... Docket: 2007-1523(IT)I   AND BETWEEN: MARY ANN SHOEFLY-DEVRIES, Appellant, and   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent,       AMENDED REASONS FOR ORDER   Paris J ...

The Queen, 2010 TCC 371         Docket: 2008-1412(GST)G BETWEEN: FRANCINE MOREAU, Appellant, and   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent. ... Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 12th day of July 2010.     “C.H. McArthur” McArthur J.               ... Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 12th day of July 2010.     "C.H. McArthur" McArthur J.             ...

The Queen, 2010 TCC 636         Citation: 2010 TCC 636 Date: 20110112 Docket: 2009-2430(IT)G BETWEEN: CAMECO CORPORATION, Appellant (applicant) and   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent.   ... In so reassessing the Appellant, the Minister made, inter alia, the following assumption: …            (kkkk) the revenue realized under the agreement with Tenex belonged to Canco based on the functions it performed and the risks it undertook;             With respect to paragraph 14 which sets out the assumptions allegedly made by the Minister, particulars of: …            (i)     with respect to (kkkk),                      (i)  the functions performed by Canco with respect to the Tenex Agreement; and                    (ii)  the risks undertaken by Canco with respect to the Tenex Agreement.   9. 14. ... SCHEDULE B                     CITATION:                                       2010 TCC 636   COURT FILE NO.:                            2009-2430(IT)G   STYLE OF CAUSE:                          CAMECO CORPORATION v.                                                           ...

La Reine, 2007 TCC 198 (Informal Procedure)   Docket: 2005-4476(GST)I   BETWEEN: CONSTRUCTION BERGEROY INC., Appellant, and   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent. ...   [16]     For these reasons, the appeals are dismissed.     Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 3rd day of April 2007.     ... AND HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   PLACE OF HEARING:                     Trois-Rivières, Quebec   DATE OF HEARING:                       August 29, 2006   REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:    The Honourable Justice Paul Bédard   DATE OF JUDGMENT:                    April 3, 2007   APPEARANCES:   Counsel for the Appellant: Pierre Hémond     Counsel for the Respondent: Louis Cliche   COUNSEL OF RECORD:          For the Appellant:                      Name:                             Pierre Hémond                      Firm:                             Brochet, Dussault, Lemieux, Larochelle   For the Respondent:                           John H. ...

"eligible relocation" means a relocation of a taxpayer where (a) the relocation occurs to enable the taxpayer (i)       to carry on a business or to be employed at a location in Canada (in section 62 and this subsection referred to as "the new work location"), or (ii) to be a student in full-time attendance enrolled in a program at a post-secondary level at a location of a university, college or other educational institution (in section 62 and in this subsection referred to as "the new work location"), (b)           both the residence at which the taxpayer ordinarily resided before the relocation (in section 62 and this subsection referred to as "the old residence") and the residence at which the taxpayer ordinarily resided after the relocation (in section 62 and this subsection referred to as "the new residence") are in Canada, and (c)            the distance between the old residence and the new work location is not less than 40 kilometres greater than the distance between the new residence and the new work location except that, in applying subsections 6(19) to (23) and section 62 in respect of a relocation of a taxpayer who is absent from but resident in Canada, this definition shall be read without reference to the words "in Canada" in subparagraph (a) (i), and without reference to paragraph (b); [7]            In computing his income for 1998 the Appellant deducted $3,369.11 for moving costs, which he calculated in this way: From Delta B.C. to Fort McMurray Alberta:                 Airfare for 2 persons                                                                                            $ 588.00                 Temporary living expenses near new or old residence                                 15 nights accommodation                                                                       200.00                                 Meals                                                                                                                         210.57                 Cost for cancelling the lease for the old residence                             500.00                 Less reimbursement or allowance not included in income     --                 Total                                                                                                                                        $1,498.57 Fort McMurray Alberta to Delta B.C.:                               Cost for 2 persons travelling by car                                                   $ 452.57                 Accommodation- 5 nights                                                                                    409.77                 Meals                                                                                                                                         112.30                 Temporary living expenses near new or old residence                 15 nights accommodation                                                                       250.00                                 Meals                                                                                                                         245.95                 Cost for cancelling the lease for the old residence                             400.00                 Less reimbursement or allowance not included in income     --                 Total                                                                                                                                        $1,870.54[sic] [8]            It became evident during the Appellant's evidence that these moving expenses were considerably inflated beyond the definition of that expression found in subsection 62(3) of the Act. ... Bowie DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                       October 26, 2001 APPEARANCES: For the Appellant:                                                 The Appellant himself Counsel for the Respondent:              Jasmine Sidhu COUNSEL OF RECORD: For the Appellant:                 Name:                               -- Firm:                -- For the Respondent:                             Morris Rosenberg                                                                 Deputy Attorney General of Canada                                                                                 Ottawa, Canada 2001-1627(IT)I BETWEEN: KENNETH CAVALIER, Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent. ... F-7, as amended. [5]               Whalen v. The Queen, 2001 DTC 190 at para. 9. [6]               [1999] 4 C.T.C. 258. [7]               Appellant's written argument, pages 10-11. [8]               [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497. [9]               [1946] S.C.R. 209. [10]             at pages 231-2. [11]             at page 218. [12]             Rennie v. ...

La Reine, 2006 TCC 646 (Informal Procedure)         Citation: 2006TCC646 Date: 20061206 Docket: 2006-1345(IT)I BETWEEN: BERNARD BROUSSEAU, Appellant, and   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent. ...   [5]      The term "disposition" is defined, inter alia, as follows in subsection 148(9) of the Act:               "disposition", in relation to an interest in a life insurance policy, includes  ...   ... The relevant parts read as follows:   "adjusted cost basis" to a policyholder as at a particular time of the policyholder's interest in a life insurance policy means the amount determined by the formula   (A + B + C + D + E + F + G + G.1) – (H + I + J + K + L)   where   A      is the total of all amounts each of which is the cost of an interest in the policy acquired by the policyholder before that time but not including an amount referred to in the description of B or E [this exclusion is not applicable here];  ...   ...