Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

However no evidence was produced as to the efforts made by the appellant company to have the plan approved, nor was there any indication that the city had refused to approve the plan. 7 On October 19, 1971 the appellant company forwarded another $1,000 to A & W for a further extension of its offer to purchase but this amount was not accepted by A & W (Exhibit A-5). 8 Also on October 19, 1974 Trojan Industrial Properties Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Trojan”) made an offer to purchase the land at McLeod Trail and 94th Avenue SE from the appellant company for $250,000—which offer was accepted by the appellant company (Exhibit A-6). 9 On October 28, 1971 the appellant company forwarded to A & W a cheque for $39,500, being the balance of the down-payment on the purchase of the McLeod Trail property which was not accepted by A & W (Exhibit A-7). 10 On October 28, 1971 a caveat forbidding registration of the McLeod Trail property was filed by the appellant company (Exhibit A-9). In a letter of October 29, 1971 (Exhibit A-8) A & W's solicitors, on the assumption that Richfield Real Estate Ltd and Mr Brad Calvin, who had been acting on behalf of A & W had business interests with the appellant company, and particularly in connection with the proposed sale with Trojan, stated that A & W was no longer prepared to grant possession of the McLeod property unless a statutory declaration was signed by Messrs Calvin and Kitzul that no such business interests existed between them. ... Because of A & W's interest in the property, the appellant company could not, by itself, effectuate the sale to Trojan. ...

You remained a resident of Canada you stated, you retained ownership of your present home, you retained your membership in the Calgary Winter Club, and your salary was paid during 1978 by the Calgary Board of Education, with whom you were employed, and being an employee — and I might add a servant of the Calgary Board of Education — it was their responsibility to pay you. ...

Mortgage Mr Mullins Discounts and guarantees, 4 mortgages Lending — Bill Mullens, Unity Bank, Kingsway, Bay & Gerrard, East Toronto. ... I have — I would say that I look at a minimum, sometimes it is like, it is one day, or a half a day investment of time. ... Victor V & Mary Spencer v MNR, [1978] CTC 2109; 78 DTC 1129; 6. HMQ v Samuel Eidinger, [1979] CTC 296; 79 DTC 5218. ...

At this juncture, it is interesting to reproduce the appellant’s Profit and Loss Statement which was filed with its return for the year ending July 31, 1959: H F POLLOCK AND CO (EAST ASIA) LTD PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT — (Canadian Dollar Account) FOR YEAR ENDED JULY 31, 1959: EXPENSES COMMISSIONS $281.07 Legal and Audit Fees $250.00 Interest and Bank charges $ 7.27 Taxes and Licences $ 51.11 NET LOSS ON OPERATIONS $589.45 H F POLLOCK AND CO (EAST ASIA) LTD TRADING AND PROFITS AND LOSS STATEMENT (Yen account converted at 360 Yen::; $1.00) FOR YEAR ENDED JULY 31, 1959: INCOME Nil EXPENSES Depreciation — furniture and fixtures $ 32.86 NET LOSS TRANSFERRED TO SURPLUS ACCOUNT $ 32.86 In the 1958 taxation year the appellant company’s receipts were $42,088.90 and the expenses $42,600.00, resulting in a small loss. ...

The difference in the fair market value of the properties as of December 31,1971, as estimated by Mr Ford and Mr Corman is very substantial as can be seen by the figures contained in Exhibit A-11 and Exhibit A-23, which read as follows: (Exhibit A-11) D K CAMPBELL ANALYSIS OF LOTS 8 &9 SOUTH CAYUGA V-DAY VALUE 1975 ADJUSTED COST BASE Tax Ford- Ford- Tax Ford- Dept Corman Campbell Dept Corman Campbell Land—239 acres 505,500.00 Barn 102,570.00 4,500.00 102,570.00 505,500.00 Gas Shed 200.00 (1,300.00) Implement Shed 3,170.00 1,300.00 3,170,00 1,870.00 105,740.00 117,400.00 511,500.00 105,740.00 117,400.00 508,670.00 House 1 acre 17,430.00 19,600.00 47,500.00 29,300.00 26,500.00 100,000.00 123,170.00 137,000.00 559,000.000 135,040.00 143,900.00 608,670.00 Selling Price Farm 619,237.30 622,037.30 548,537.30 House & Acre 29,300.00 26,500.00 100,000.00 648,537,30 648,537.30 648,537.30 (3,170.00)* Farm Capital Gain 513,497.30 504,637.30 43,037.30 Less Outlays & Expenses 6,810.35 6,810.35 6,810.35 (3,170.00)* Capital Gain for Tax Purposes 506,686.95 497,826.95 36,226.95 (1,585.00)* Taxable Capital Gain—50% 235,343,47 248,913.47 18,113.47 16,528.48 Omitted from ACB in error in filing original return but reflected in ACB on Notice of Objection to give revised taxable capital gain of $16,528.48 instead of $18,113.47. (Exhibit A-23) S M SMITH ANALYSIS OF LOTS 15 & 16, Cone 7, S Cayuga V-DAY VALUE 1975 ADJUSTED COST BASE Tax Tax Tax Dept Corman Ford Dept Corman Ford Land $51,700 $55,700 221,760 173 Ac 1,300 $51,700 $57,000 $221,760 51,700 $ 57,000 $221,760 Sale Price $280,000 $280,000 $280,000 Less adjusted cost base 51,700 57,000 221,760 Farm Capital Gain $228,300 $223,000 $ 58,240 Less outlays & expenses 2,508 2,508 2,508 Capital Gain for Tax Purposes $225,792 $220,492 $ 55,732 Taxable Capital Gain-50% $112,896 $110,246 $ 27,866 Counsel for the appellants suggested that the Board should reject both appraisals and arrive at a V-day value of the properties on the basis of the information placed before it. ...

The appellant’s mother, Mrs Margaret Whittaker, purchased the following annuity contracts from Canada Life Assurance Company: Single stipulated Monthly payment payment August 1, 1963 — Policy #B 111-856 $31,110.00 $300.00 March 11, 1964 — Policy #B 114-049 9,857.60 100.00 The premium or purchase price was the amount indicated under the “single stipulated payment” heading. ... In the first contract, the term “certain” is — 8.6417 years. Paragraph 300(2)(d) says that it will be 9 years, being the nearest integral number of years.) ... In the second contract the term “certain” is — 8.2147 years. (The nearest integral number of years is 8.) ...

In summary, the garments could not be “manufactured” simply by virtue of the cutting and sewing process — the complete operation conducted by the appellant had to be examined and taken into account by the Board. ... Those operations (cutting and sewing in particular) are not part of the calculation base upon which the appellant can make its claim for the relevant deduction — and indeed the appellant is not claiming that they should be. ... The activities which comprise the labour cost of the calculation — the $1,056 at issue — were within the meaning and definition of “qualified activities” as outlined in Regulation 5202. ...

I am requesting that the 90-day time limit for filing an objection be waived since the notices of objections weren’t filed earlier for the following reasons: — I do not speak English fluently and I wasn’t notified by the tax auditors of the 90-day time limit for filing a notice of objection. — I didn’t engage an accountant until after the 90-day period had expired. — I subsequently contacted Revenue Canada and they suggested that I send them a letter requesting that they accept adjustments to the reassessments rather than file a formal notice of objection. — I sent a letter dated September 30, 1977, requesting the department to review the reassessments and in January 1978 they notified me that they would accept any additional information relating to the reassessments. — I reviewed my records and found that I previously hadn’t taken capital cost allowances that I was entitled to but after the reassessments it would be to my benefit to claim the capital cost allowance. — I submitted a letter dated March 31, 1978, requesting that the capital cost allowance claim be amended. — Revenue Canada notified me July 24, 1978, that they wouldn’t amend the capital cost allowance because I had passed the 90-day time limit and said that I would have to file a formal notice of objection to the reassessments if I wanted the capital cost allowance claim allowed. ...

The facts upon which the parties were in agreement included: — The appellant is a self-employed plumbing contractor. — He did not file income tax returns for the years 1973 to 1976. — By arbitrary assessment the respondent determined the appellant’s taxable income for the years in question to be as follows: 1973 $12,827.00 1974 14,848.59 1975 2,224.54 1976 12,624.27 — By Notices of Assessment dated July 13, 1978 the respondent levied, inter alia, penalties under section 163(1) of the Federal Income Tax Act and section 19 of the BC Income Tax Act. ... He was not positive that there would have been income tax to pay — but assumed there might have been. ... It remains therefore for the Minister to show that this taxpayer knew or should have known that tax was payable — in connection with the three remaining years. ...

A second aspect of the argument from counsel for the appellant is that the amount at issue did not result from a damage claim — was not, in fact, damages at all. ... Because an earlier Supreme Court judgment had an involvement with this matter, counsel for the Minister then proceeded to a second position which was that there was another “property” — the contract, the agreement of purchase and sale. ... In my view, the property which was sold (to use the terminology from paragraph 12(1)(b)) — to the extent that sold in that context can be interpreted as disposed of — was the agreement of purchase and sale in that it was terminated by the minutes of settlement. ...