Search - 屯门 安南都护府

(SN page 10). — Dow Chemical then remained as sole supplier in Canada. ... The bonus was in the range of $300,000 — $400,000 in a typical year. In one year, when there was exceptional profit, the bonus amounted to close to $1,000,000. ... Law — Cases at Law — Analysis 4.01 Law The main provisions of the Income Tax Act involved in the present case are subsections 246(1), 246(3), and 247(2); paragraphs 247(3)(a) and (c); and subparagraph 247(3)(b)(ii). ...

Among other case, law, counsel for the Minister referred to John W Howell v MNR, [1981] CTC 2241; 81 DTC 230, and in particular to the following quotation to be found at 2245 and 234 respectively: I am in agreement with counsel for the respondent — there is a bottom limit to the responsibility which must be accepted by even the most inexperienced or trusted taxpayer. ... I am quite convinced that a review of the 1978 income tax return alone would not have so alerted him — in fact it would probably have indicated to him that he was finally starting to show a profit — he had tax to pay. ... In the instant case the taxpayer failed to do that which a prudent man should have done — faced with a requirement to certify certain facts which were within his own knowledge — he did not review the return at all. ...

Q To determine that, did you examine any documentation from N L Sandler & Co? ... Argument The position of the agent for the appellant came down to: —“... ... The argument of counsel for the respondent may be summarized as follows: —... ...

If those were the facts, then there would be no exemption for the principal residence on the disposition of the property in 1977 — all of the capital gain would have been with respect to rental properties. ... The Minister in 1977 did allow the appellant a principal residence exemption to the extent of / of the total capital gain realized in that year. ... On that basis, the fraction of / is a mathematically more accurate expression of the ratio and, in my opinion, the apportionment of not more than / of the land adjacent to the building can be reasonably regarded as contributing to the use and enjoyment of the apartment unit occupied by the appellant as his principal residence. ...

The notice of appeal in its critical portions reads: The appellant, Dr D A Porter, was employed as Assistant Superintendent — Personnel by the Edmonton Public School Board during the years 1967 to 1969. ... The position of the respondent was that: — the appellant acquired in or before 1967, for personal use, a residential property at 26 Westbrook Drive, in the City of Edmonton in the Province of Alberta; — the property at 26 Westbrook Drive was occupied as a personal residence by the appellant and his family during the years 1967, 1968 and 1969; — following the appellant’s move to British Columbia in November 1969, the Edmonton residence remained vacant until it was sold; — the rental expenses claimed as a deduction from income in respect of property known as 26 Westbrook Drive, Edmonton were not outlays or expenses incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income within the meaning of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 12 of the Act but were personal or living expenses within the meaning of paragraph (h) of subsection (1) of section 12 and paragraph (ae) of subsection (1) of section 139 of the Act; — the house situated on the said property was not acquired for the purpose of gaining or producing income within the meaning of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section 1102 of the Income Tax Regualtions and, therefore, no capital cost allowance is permitted under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 11 of the Act: — rental expenses claimed as a deduction from income in 1972 in respect of property known as 26 Westbrook Drive, Edmonton, Alberta, were not outlays or expenses incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income within the meaning of paragraph 18(1) (a) of the Act but were personal or living expenses within the meaning of paragraph 18(1)(h) and subsection 248(1) of the Act; — the said property was a personal use property within the meaning of paragraph 54(f) of the Act and therefore the allowable capital loss and net capital loss deductions claimed by the taxpayer under paragraphs 38(b) and 111(1)(b) of the Act in respect of the disposition of the property have been properly disallowed in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph 40(2)(g)(iii) of the Act. ... The implementation of subsection 20(6) also requires adherence to other standard income tax rules — and of specific relevance to this case it is necessary that the “conversion” be for the “purpose of gaining or producing income therefrom”. ...

At all relevant times, Centenary Distillers Limited owned all of the issued and outstanding shares of Joseph E Seagram & Sons, Inc. 6. ... Army & Navy Department Store (Western) Ltd v MNR, [1953] CTC 293; 53 DTC 1185; 16. ... Webster’s Third New International Dictionary Unabridged—A Merriam-Webster G & C Merriam Co, Mass USA “belong”: “to be the property of a person or thing”. 1.c. ...

It was a much larger investment firm than Garneau & Associates Inc and offered a great future in the eyes of the appellants as the offer was presented to them. ... It is entitled “Fifteenth Amendment to Partnership Agreement of J R Timmins & Co”—a copy of which was filed as Exhibit A-1. ... A copy of the said agreement was filed as Exhibit A-2 and is entitled “Sixteenth Amendment to Partnership Agreement of J R Timmins & Co.”. ...

On December 12,1975, he placed an order with his investment dealer A E Ames & Company (“Ames”) to purchase $30,000 of Government of Canada Bonds (“Bonds”) at 7 /4%. ... Contentions By the appellant: — Physical delivery of the bonds to me was made by Ames against full payment on December 12, 1975. ... —The bonds were disposed of on December 15, 1975 by redemption. — I received an interest payment of $1,087.50 on account of the ownership of the Said bonds. ...

. — In 1963, he purchased from his father a long narrow strip of land which was Cut in two by the main road running through Kippens. On the one portion of the thus divided strip of land he built his home. — He is reasonably well educated, and had several job offers, including positions in Montreal and Cornerbrook, but he did not want to reside away from Kippens. — In 1972, using almost all of his savings, he purchased from relatives (who had inherited it from his father) an additional strip of land adjacent to part of his original property. ... —The appellant obtained employment at the linerboard mill in Stephenville, and remained living at his home in Kippens. — In the years 1973 and 1974, he was approached by fellow employees, first enquiring who owned the property in question, and ultimately asking to purchase building lots. — Having decided to sell some of the property by 1975, he cleared some land, put in an access road and prepared a subdivision plan. ...

. — LAURENTIAN LEASING INC. for the price of four thousand dollars ($4,000) per common share. ... Additional Additional Year Income Tax Tax Estate of Henri Giguère (later $ 91,580 — Yvonne Giguère (1965 20,000 $ 2,848 (1968 80,000 13,821 Marcel Giguere (1965 20,000 2,783 (1968 80,000 13,602 René Giguere (1965 20,000 2,710 (1968 80,000 13,611 Robert Giguère (1965 40,000 8,419 (later 154,193 — $585,773 $57,694 The taxpayers were advised four months ago of our intention to seek these directions but as yet they have made no representations. ... At this point we have a background report prepared for the Royal Trust Company by Clarkson, Gordon & Co, Chartered Accountants. ...