Search - 屯门 安南都护府

The point at issue in each appeal is exactly the same — the disallowance by the Minister of National Revenue of a charge made by the taxpayers for legal fees. ... And further... they outline what occurs under that section where they state: “... there is a two step fiction enacted by section 70 subsection (5) of the Act. ... I would agree with counsel for the appellants that if indeed actual title to the property is to be transferred, then there would in all probability be some costs — and the legal costs at issue in these appeals might be included. ...

The respondent asserted: — The appellant by an agreement of purchase and sale sold his residence known for municipal purposes at 765 Woodcrest Blvd in the City of London, in the Province of Ontario, to Sifton Properties Ltd for a consideration of the amount of $46,072.50. — The appellant did not incur any commission expense, legal fees or mortgage discharge fee expense on the sale to Sifton but to the extent that any such expenses were incurred, such expenses were incurred and paid by the said Sifton Properties Ltd. — The expenditures claimed were not amounts paid by the appellant within the meaning of subsection 62(1) of the Income Tax Act. ... Harrison because his term also refers back to the word “paid” — it does not provide a substitute or an alternate to payment.) ...

. — Division B, Subdivision D of the Act deals with specific sources of income, and... specific types of receipts are applicable to all taxpayers, and provided that amounts can be categorized as falling within the specific subsections of section 56, such an amount is taxed thereunder and not under the general “charging” provisions of the Act. — In order to determine whether a given amount should be treated under paragraph 56(1)(n), it is necessary to interpret that section in light of the facts of the payment. — In Webster’s New World Dictionary, The College Edition, published in 1970, at 461 the word “endeavor” is defined as “duty as in... to make an earnest attempt; to try to achieve; to try (to do something)”, and as a noun, ‘‘an earnest attempt or effort”. — In undertaking the course of studies leading to the examinations which the taxpayer wrote successfully during the taxation year ending December 31, 1976, she was successful in the field of effort or “field of endeavor” ordinarily carried on by her in her daily work as an employee of Excelsior. ...

Out of thé $12,000 selling price, the respondent considers $10,592.06 to be a reasonable price for the house, which constitutes a recapture of ($10,592.06 — $8,269.06) $2,323. 3./. ... From another standpoint, the Board accepts the appellant’s figure of $9,379.20 as a more logical selling price for the building, which establishes the recapture at ($9,379.20 — $8,269.06) $1,110.14. 4.3. Capital Loss The Board, accepting the appellant’s figures for the land; sets the capital loss at ($4,540.67 — $2,620.80) $1,919.87, half of which can be deducted. 5. ...

In 1965 the appellant acquired three parcels of land: Settle property — 55 acres Turner property — 38 acres Bisset property — 81 acres Because he wanted to have some land in his own name, the Settle and Turner properties were purchased in the name of the company whereas the Bisset property was to remain in his own name. ...

On the financial statements filed at the hearing, the first balance sheet produced was as of June 1973, showing: Accounts receivable Trade $ 9,556 Other 114,056 The 1974 balance sheet showed: Accounts receivable Trade $ 18,479 Other 135,502 Both Kent Inc and Ontario Inc went bankrupt in 1974, their doors being closed by the appellant in that they were a failure from day one. ... As a result, the transfers are not allowable to a deduction pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 18(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act which reads as follows: 18. (1) In computing the income of a taxpayer from a business or property no deduction shall be made in respect of (a) an outlay or expense except to the extent that it was made or incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income from the business or property; Furthermore, the said transfers could not be considered a bad debt within the meaning of paragraph 20(1)(p) of the Act which reads as follows: 20. (1) Notwithstanding paragraphs 18(1)(a), (b) and (h), in computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from a business or property, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as are wholly applicable to the source or such part of the following amounts as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto: (p) the aggregate of debts owing to the taxpayer (i) that are established by him to have become bad debts in the year, and (ii) that have (except in the case of debts arising from loans made in the ordinary course of business by a taxpayer part of whose ordinary business was the lending of money) been included in computing his income for the year or a previous year; From all the evidence before me, I hold that the debt owed to the appellant by the related companies arose from an advance of capital to them and that such loans, or shall I say the supplying of capital by way of inventory, by the appellant, was not made for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property and, in consequence thereof, the loss arising from the related companies which failed to pay the appellant for the transfers of inventory is deemed to be nil by virtue of subparagraph 40(2)(g)(ii) which reads: 40. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), (g) a taxpayer’s loss, if any, from the disposition of a property, to the extent that it is (ii) a loss from the disposition of a debt or other right to receive an amount, unless the debt or right, as the case may be, was acquired by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property (other than exempt income) or as consideration for the disposition of capital property to a person with whom the taxpayer was dealing at arm’s length, See North West Tent & Awning Co Ltd v MNR, [1976] CTC 2332; 76 DTC 1227. ...

Background The appellant at all relevant times resided at 72 Thatcher Drive, in the City of Winnipeg, Manitoba (Thatcher), and was the spouse of Carl J Thor- steinson (C J T) who was himself assessed to additional income tax on September 12, 1977 with explanations relevant to this appeal as follows: 1973 Add: Net Rental Income re: 2791 Pembina Hwy (Capital Cost Allowance Claimed Amounted to $875) 617.15 1974 (1) Add: Net Rental Income Re: 2791 Pembina Hwy $498.42 Add: Capital Cost Allowance disallowed as property was disposed of on December 31, 1974 1,412.50 1,910.92 (2) Recapture of 1973 CCA 875.00 (3) Taxable Capital Gain re sale of 2791 Pem bina Hwy proceeds—December 31, 1974 $142,000.00 Cost—June 1973 67,000.00 Capital Gain $ 75,000.00 Taxable Capital Gain (1/2) $37,500.00 The amounts of additional tax assessed against C J T in the Sept 12/1977 assessments were: 1973 increase $ 516.66 1974 increase 24,098.11 1975 increase 8,165.50 32,780.27 Contentions In view of the nature of this appeal, and the issues raised therein, the Board notes first, the position of the respondent: — By transfer dated July 2, 1976 and registered in the Winnipeg Land Titles on July 9, 1976, C J T transferred his one-half interest in real property (“Thatcher”) in Winnipeg to the appellant; —The transfer was made for a consideration in excess of $32,957.22; —On the day of the transfer, C J T was liable to pay an amount not less than $32,957.22 under the Income Tax Act. For the appellant: —C J T conducted business through a limited company (Carlson Trailer Center Ltd—“Carlson” or the Company”) at the Pembina Highway address (Pembina). — Due to business difficulties, C J T declared bankruptcy in 1977 and the Department of National Revenue was one of his creditors. — The transfer by C J T of his interest in Thatcher was a mere substitution of property by the appellant commercially and bona fide undertaken and is not within the provisions of section 160 of the Income Tax Act (Canada). ... —On December 31,1974, the appellant transferred Pembina to C JT T personally for a stated amount of $142,000; C J T in turn transferred it to Carlson on the same day. — In her 1975 income tax return, the appellant declared a taxable capital gain of $37,500 (50% of $142,000- $67,000) with regard to the Pembina Sale. ...

The appellant, in his returns of income for the 1972 to 1975 taxation years, reported losses from farming as follows: 1972 $ 4,031.24 1973 $12,043.29 1974 $23,133.70 1975 $ 8,559.90 The appellant, in the years in question, reported small amounts of income from sources other than farming. ...

Minister of National Revenue, [1980] CTC 2647, [1980] DTC 1556 John B Goetz:— This is an appeal by the taxpayer with respect to his 1978 taxation year wherein as a geologist he sought to deduct the following fees: Association of Professional Engineers of British Columbia $70.00 Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists & Geophysicists of Alberta 70.00 Canadian Institute of Mining & Metallurgy 35.00 The Cordilleran Section of the Geological Association of of Canada 36.25 $211.25 The sum of $430 as an education deduction in attending the Canadian Outward Bound Mountain School and the sum of $25 paid to the British Columbia Institute of Technology were also claimed. ... The issue then resolves upon whether fees for membership in the Canadian Institute of Mining & Metallurgy in the sum of $35 are properly deductible from the appellant’s income. ... From 1970 to 1972 he was an employee of J C Sproule & Associates who were engineers specializing in geology and who were also geophysicists. ...

Otherwise my circumstances were: The benefit that I realized when I acquired the shares in question (1977) was from a person resident in Canada but with operations almost (see Note 1 & 2 below) exclusively outside of Canada, source of income almost (notes 1 & 2 below) entirely outside of Canada for beneficial employment totally attributable to duties of office outside Canada. ... (e) For purposes of subparagraph (1)(a)(v) the aggregate determined under this paragraph in respect of the non-resident person is the aggregate of (i) Any remuneration in respect of an office or employment that was paid to him directly or indirectly by a person resident in Canada and was received by the non-resident person in the year (1977) Except to the extent that such remuneration was attributable to the duties of an office or employment performed by him anywhere outside Canada* and (...) ...