Search - 屯门 安南都护府

.; 5 the circumstances which caused the sale; 6 intention. 4.3.2 Canadian precedents consider almost the same factors: 1 intention; 2 the relationship between the transaction and the taxpayer’s business; 3 nature of the transaction and goods involved in it; 4 number and repetition of transactions: 5 the objects of the corporation. 4.3.3 In the case at bar, the factors to which the parties refer are the following: (a) intention: — the intention was to invest, says the appellant; —, the purchase was made with a view to resale, says the respondent; (b) duration of ownership: — the period of one month between purchase and sale is indicative, says the respondent, of commercial profit; — circumstances made it necessary to sell so quickly, explains the appellant; (c) partnership with Les Entreprises Marcal Inc: — Les Entreprises Marcal Inc has as its object the purchase and sale of land; the appellant does not hold shares in Les Entre- prises Marcal Inc; she is not a person connected with this company and is a legal person independent of the company; (d) number of transactions: — this is the appellant’s only transaction; according to the respondent, it is at least an adventure in the nature of trade (paragraph 139(1)(e)); (e) object of the sale: — by its nature a piece of land is usually an object of investment, especially if one plans to set up a campground on it-^however, it can be an object of trade if the investment was only a pretext, or if the buyer changed his mind too readily. 4.3.4 At first glance, what strikes the Board is perhaps this very readiness with which the buyers suddenly changed their minds about the campground and decided to sell. ...

Contentions The appellant claimed the deductions under paragraph 8(1)(f) of the Income Tax Act and based his claim on the fact that: — he was employed in the capacity of store manager with the responsibility of selling clothing; — he was ordinarily required to carry out his duties away from his employer’s place of business. These duties were: —soliciting and meeting prospective contract customers —deliver to customers —making promotional public appearances —exchanging stock between stores —company sales meeting — he was remunerated strictly on commissions; —he did not receive any allowance or reimbursement for these expenses. ... The first specific condition —“... was required to pay his own expenses” is immediately attached in subparagraph 8(1)(f)(i) to the preamble phrase “under the contract of employment” but, in my view, it does not make that the only one of the four conditions which must be founded in the contract of employment. ...

Had it been so directed — despite the fact that the appellant no longer lived at the residential address or carried on business at the business address — and even despite the fact that the assessor was aware of these facts — it might well be that in the absence of any act on the part of the appellant to notify the Minister of a change of address, he would be bound by the sending of a notice to either of the addresses so given. ...

According to the evidence, four individuals — Mr Douglas J Lemery, a businessman; Mr Kenneth J Davis, a real estate agent; Mr Earle A Morrison, an industrial designer; and Mr Robert W Siddall, an architect — purchased the land, paying $10,000 down and $40,000 on completion of the titles, and then transferred it for the same price to the appellant company. Mr Lemery testified that he and his brother had been in the motel business in Seattle for a number of years — operating between 15 and 20 motels. ... He referred the Board to a Supreme Court judgment — Thomas Campbell v MNR, [1953] 1 S.C.R. 3; [1952] CTC 334; 52 DTC 1187 — to say that even though the express intention is important it is not conclusive and the course of conduct should also be examined. ...

The company in this public offering used the services of two investment dealers—Playfair & Co of Toronto, and Hemsworth, Turton & Co of Vancouver, a firm with which one of the other associates was involved. ... Through the appellants, counsel for the respondent identified and filed these documents: Exhibit R-1—Letter with an attachment, from Prowsky, Lindzon & Biback, Solicitors, to the Department of National Revenue dated May 14, 1973; Exhibit R-2—Memorandum of agreement between Frederick W Henderson and Hearne dated September 8, 1967; Exhibit R-3—Photostatic copy of the share trading ledger sheet of Henderson from the records of Playfair & Co, Stockbrokers; Exhibit R-4—Photostatic copy of the share trading ledger sheet of Watts from the records of Playfair & Co, Stockbrokers; Exhibit R-5—Photostatic copy of the share trading ledger sheet of Leliever from the records of Playfair & Co, Stockbrokers; Exhibit R-6—Copy of a letter from a firm of Vancouver solicitors to the British Columbia Securities Commission, dated June 6, 1968, stating that the primary distribution of the shares under the Hearne prospectus had been completed. ...

In their respective notices of appeal, the appellants state that the capital gain on the sale of property in question had been increased to $37,400 by the Department of National Revenue, and it calculated the capital gain as follows: Proceeds $230,000.00 Less: ACB—4686 SE Marine $33,550 4696 SE Marine 96,162 129,712.00 100,288.00 Less: Outlays and Expenses 1,287.65 Revised capital gain $ 99,000.35 Less: Reserve $ 15,000 x 599 000.35 $230,000 6,456.55 Revised capital gain $ 92,543.80 Previous capital gain 93,900.35 Decrease 1,356.55 Taxable portion 678.28 Split 50% to each taxpayer 339.14 The respondent contends that the adjusted cost base should be $129,712, whereas the appellant claims that the adjusted cost base should be $190,000. ... Now, would you please describe how you decided to use a 71/2 % capitalization rate for the income attributable to the land of $85,000? ... And at that time people were accepting vacant sites with a return of from 6 to 8 percent on land because there was accrual to land values, land was appreciating and people were accepting a lower rate on land at that time, and a good deal of land was being sold with a 6 percent return, in particular parking lots in Vancouver. 50 I applied a 7 Zz % interest to the land value and deducted that from my income after expenses. ...

V & R Enterprises Limited v MNR, [1974] CTC 2099; 74 DTC 1089; The Queen v V & R Enterprises Limited, [1979] CTC 465; 79 DTC 5399; 3. ... The case of V & R Enterprises Limited v MNR, and HMQ v V & R Enterprises Limited The appellant company, which was engaged in a relatively small machine tool business, followed the practice of accruing salaries since its inception in 1962. ... In McClain Industries of Canada, Inc, however, the same kind of payable amounts were called “management Commission”, and in V & Fl Enterprises Limited, they were called “bonus” by TRB and “salary” by FCTD. ...

Law — Cases — Comments 4.01 Law The main provisions of the Income Tax Act involved in the present case are subsection 31(1) and section 248 (definitions of “farming” and “personal or living expenses”). ...

Montreal, the fifth day of February, 1976. per Monette, Clerk, Michaud, Barakett & Levesque (signed) André Michaud (signed) Jean-M Gagne The appellant testified that in the taxation years 1975, 1976 and 1977, it was not he who billed clients directly for services which he had provided to them, he was not paid directly for these services, and he was not directly responsible for collection — it was the firm that was responsible for all these tasks. ... In my view, they clearly did not make that latter type of contract — the appellant is not a partner in the firm, in any meaning of the word. ... I find that the respondent’s analysis of the contractual obligations in his reply to the notice of appeal in the case at bar does not in itself categorically establish that the appellant was an employee — even were that analysis correct. ...

Boychuk Construction received a report prepared by Underwood McLellan & Associates Limited on the “Development of Residential Land in East Nutana” where the land was situated. ... There is a further report from Makale, Holloway & Associates Ltd re Wildwood Park Development, indicating that the Wildwood scheme had been adopted by the City of Saskatoon in 1966. ... Its very close proximity to the City limits of Saskatoon — and being so close to property purchased by the City of Saskatoon on the perimeter of its city limits — impels me to the conclusion that having regard to all the facts of this case, the only logical reason for the initial purchase would be the prospect of a future sale or development of the land and to turn it to a profit, which indeed happened. ...