Search - 屯门 安南都护府

. — Ross Brown agreed to participate in the engagement of a firm of consulting engineers to draft a plan of subdivision covering the farm. ... The position of the respondent was that: —during 1968, construction had begun on an Ontario Hydro four million kilowatt thermal generating station at, Nanticoke, Ontario, an area close to the farm. — During 1967 and 1968, the Steel Company of Canada acquired, by way of options, approximately 6,600 acres in the area of the farm, and in an official announcement on or about April 24, 1968 the Steel Company of Canada was indicated as the optioner of the 6,600 acres in the area of the farm. — At the time the farm was acquired, the appellant was employed as a real estate salesman. —Several attempts were made by the appellant to subdivide the farm into residential housing lots. — Prior to the appellant having moved onto the farm to occupy it and undertake a small degree of farming activity, representations had been made to the Woodhouse Township Council to subdivide the farm at a special meeting of that Council held on November 12, 1970. — Further representations were made to the Township on March 1, 1971 and April 1, 1971. ...

In his evidence, he admitted that there were mistakes and omissions in the T4-Supplementary returns prepared by him on behalf of the two companies, Stodola Concrete and Saskatoon S & G. ... In construing a penal section there is the unimpeachable authority of Lord Esher in Tuck & Sons v Priester (1887), 19 QBD 629, to the effect that if the words of a penal section are capable of an interpretation that would, and one that would not, inflict the penalty, the latter must prevail. ... The comment on the summary of property income of the appellant, attached to the tax return read: NOTE: Share of principal payment received on Zsiros property mortgage receivable is considered to be realization of capital gain on sale of property which took place in 1971. / of $36,000.00 \ $12,000.00 The Board recognizes that the omission of the disputed amount from his reported taxable income was a lack of compliance with the responsibilities under the Act, and that both the ‘appellant and his accountant are experienced and knowledgeable businessmen who, with marginal extra care, could have ensured proper reporting. ...

During the 1975 and 1976 taxation years the Appellant purchased and sold the following properties: 1975 Date Price Price Gain Gain (a) 703 Village on the Green Edmonton purchase July/74 $28,100 sale Sept/75 35,000 $ 6,900 (b) 5710- 143rd Avenue Edmonton purchase Aug./74 26,000 sale Sept/75 36,000 10,000 (c) 143 Dover Meadow Calgary (Z> interest) purchase Dec./74 17,000 sale Oct./75 21,000 4,000 (d) 66 Ridgewood Edmonton purchase May/75 33,000 sale Sept/75 34,800 1,800 Total gain $22,700 1976 Date Price Price Gain (e) 181 Ridgewood Edmonton purchase Apr./75 $35,000 sale Feb./76 42,000 $ 6,300 (f) 14320- 80th Street Edmonton purchase May/76 42,000 sale Dec./76 42,000 (g) 328 Hermitage Road Edmonton purchase May/76 38,000 sale Dec./76 38,000 Total gain $ 6,300 3. ... This property was sold in July, 1976 and the sale was reported in the income tax return for 1976 of Helen M Ness. 3.03 Concerning the assumptions of fact quoted in paragraph 2.02.2, the appellant, Mr Lloyd Ness, said that: (a) he admits subparagraph (a); (b) he admits subparagraph (b); (c) he admits subparagraph (c); (d) he admits subparagraph (d); (e) he admits subparagraph (e); and (f) he denies subparagraphs (f), (g) and (h). 3.04 For the years involved the appellant, Lloyd Ness, reported rental income as follows: Profit Income Expense (Loss) 1975 $7,100 $11,314.94 ($4,214.94) 1976 $5,600 $ 9,233.66 ($3,633.66) 3.05 Mr Ness testified that in 1973, he was manager of a Co-op Service Centre. ... Law — Analysis 4.01 Law The main provisions of the Income Tax Act involved in the present case are section 3, subsections 9(1) and 248(1) definition of “business”. ...

Mr Philip A McNeely testified that in 1966 he and Mr Jacques Lecompte, both civil engineers, formed a partnership under the firm name and style of McNeely & Lecompte as consulting civil engineers, with offices in Rockland, Ontario. ... Apart from the added words “& Associates Ltd” in Exhibit A-2, the letterheads are basically the same. ... In the case of Losey v MNR, [1957] CTC 146; 57 DTC 1098, at page 152 [1101] Thorson, P states as follows: But the value of the goodwill of a business is what a purchaser would be willing to give for the chance of being able to keep the connection of which it consists: vide Austen v Boys (1858), 11 De G & J 626 at 635; Lindley on Partnership, 10th ed, p 523. ...

Point at Issue The question is whether the appellant is correct in regarding Y Morin Associés Inc (the principal purpose of which is providing administrative and financial consultation services) in the 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974 taxation years as being in fact (and not only in law) a different entity from the accounting partnership Morin, Dufresne, Cloutier, Bédard & Associés, CA. ... He had to negotiate with suppliers, take over the inventory and so on. 3.15 The company did not provide management services to the partnership, although it did so to other organizations. 3.16 As Exhibits 1-2, I-3, 1-4 and I-5, accounts submitted to clients during 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974 were filed jointly and total as follows: Years No of Accounts Total Amount 1971 6 $14,425.00 1972 20 41,644.15 1973 12 40,900.00 1974 11 44,900.00 3.17 TheClients to whom the foregoing invoices were sent and whose names recur most often were: Claire B Beaudoin, P A Beaudoin Inc, Placage Automatique Drummond Inc, Placements Bombardier Ltée, J A Fontaine & Fils Inc, Unique Art Inc, Provincial Mobile Inc, Rodrigue Bédard Enr, Allard 5-10-15 Ltée, CB & B Enterprises, Gill Truck Plaza Inc, Imprimerie Laflamme Ltée, Industrie L’Islet Inc and Dufresne & Légaré Inc. ... Alberta & Southern Gas Co Ltd v Her Majesty the Queen, [1976] CTC 639; 76 DTC 6362, [1977] CTC 388; 77 DTC 5244; 21. ...

In Marreco & Others v Richardson, the issue revolved around the question of whether the action was statute barred. ... The only area where I am aware that the Marreco case has not been followed is in bankruptcy cases, eg, re Hone & re Potter. ... Then he referred the Board to a decision already cited by the appellants in re Bankruptcy of G & G Equipment Co Ltd, 74 DTC 6407 to say that the appeals should be dismissed. ...

See BC Electric Ry Co Ltd v Minister of National Revenue, (1958) SCR 133, 58 DTC 1022, per Abbott J at pages 137-8, where he applied the principle that was enunciated by Viscount Cave in British Insulated and Helsby Cables, Ltd v Atherton, supra, and that had been applied by Kerwin J, as he then was, in Montreal Light, Heat & Power Consolidated v Minister of National Revenue, (1942) SCR 89 at 105, 2 DTC 535 at 537. ... Ounsworth & Vickers, Limited, [1915] 3 KB 267; 5. Regent Oil Co Ltd v Strick, [1965] 3 WLR 636; and 6. ... If this be true of advertising expenses, in my view, it is equally true of other expenses, incurred while the business is running with a view to increasing the volume of that business — so long as such expenses are incurred for the purpose of gaining income in such a way that their deduction is not prohibited by section 12(1)(a). ...

He and Mrs Turnbull made the decisions with respect to the buying and selling of shares of other companies and were assisted by a broker by the name of Anderson of J P Cannon & Company, who was also given a kind of carte blanche to make decisions on his own. ... He also admitted: that he knew his company (Lawr) owed $61,346.48 in taxes to the government when it received the $270,000 from J P Cannon & Company Limited, but because of his unfortunate experience in having had money frozen, he hastily transferred it out of the country; that Lawr ceased to do business some time in the late fall of 1967 because of financial difficulties; and that its charter was cancelled on December 10, 1969. Counsel for the appellant argued that according to the evidence adduced no one in the Guthrie family — neither Mr Guthrie, Mrs Guthrie nor any of their five daughters — received the $185,000. ...

The appellant made a few adjustments to that figure, which adjustments were shown on a statement called “T1 Information — 1978”, and ended up with his share of that profit as $16,435. ... The Minister looked into the partnership — apparently on a desk audit basis as, by the time of reassessing the appellant, no one had been to see him — and adjusted his income from the partnership by adding to it the sum of $15,488 so that all the income of the partnership was assessed in the hands of the appellant. ...

The CDA for the first 1978 period was calculated by the Appellant as follows: CUMULATIVE DEDUCTION ACCOUNT — March 31, 1978 Cumulative Deduction Account at the end of the preceding taxation year $(90,539) Add: Taxable Income (Cannot be a negative amount) $16,650 16,650 73,889 Cumulative Deduction Account at the End of the Tax ation Year $(73,889) The Second 1978 period was calculated as follows: CUMULATIVE DEDUCTION ACCOUNT — June 5, 1978 Cumulative Deduction Account at the end of the preceding year $(73,929) Add: Taxable Income (cannot be a negative amount) $45,499 45,499 $(28,430) Cumulative Deduction Account at the End of the Tax ation Year (28,430) The respondent, in his reply to notice of appeal, alleged: 2. ... In answer to the appellant’s argument of ambiguity- hence a broader interpretation should be applied in favour of the taxpayer — counsel for the respondent simply stated that the section being considered was an exempting provision which precluded any consideration of ambiguity in favour of the taxpayer. ...