Search - 屯门 安南都护府

Faced with that illustration, the route or choice of routes by which Mr Deckelbaum might ensure his objective was obvious — promissory note, mortgage, etc. ... The more so when the term “arrangement” in this relevant section is qualified by the flashing red light “bona fide” — a term which, simply because it lacks precision, should be approached with the greatest of caution. ... The amount at issue in this appeal does not fulfill the conditions outlined in that section to exempt it from tax — no bona fide arrangements were made for its repayment. ...

This Commission told him of a large piece of land with buildings owned by a bankrupt company, James United Steel, which was available, and he should contact the trustee, the firm of Clarkson, Gordon & Co in Montreal. ... I called him three or four days afterwards to arrange another meeting and made him the following proposition — I said: “Raymond, I like your idea, but ten people is way too many, and I think that the two of us could buy it: that would be plenty. ... Messrs Bergeron and Roy did everything to successfully complete their project, including a financial study by an engineer and discussion of a loan. they never put their property up for sale, and in his submission "when opportunity knocks it must be seized": The Queen v Stan fold Investment Corporation, [1974] CTC 19; 74 DTC 6035, and Hope Hardware & Building Supply Company Limited v MNR, [1967] CTC 120; 67 DTC 5085. ...

Contentions For the appellant: — In the spring of 1971, the appellant entered into an “oral option agreement” with his son and his son-in-law whereby he agreed to sell to them all the shares in the capital of Seal-Top. ... For the respondent: —The value of the shares on Valuation Day was $60,000; —The appellant sold the shares to Sam Catalano and Basil Cultrera in 1974 for the sale price of $50,000; —The fair market value of those shares at the date of sale was $225,000; —The sale was not an arm’s length transaction; — By virtue of paragraph 69(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, the appellant is deemed to have received $225,000 for the shares; —The taxable capital gain on the sale of those shares was therefore $75,166.50; —The reserves of $14,667 in the 1975 taxation year and $7,333 in the 1976 taxation year were reasonable allocations for reserves in the taxation years in question for the portion of the proceeds of disposition not received by the appellant in the taxation year. ... BETWEEN: BASIL CULTRERA, of the Borough of East York, and SAM CATALANO, of the Borough of Scarborough, both of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, (hereinafter called “the Purchasers”) OF THE FIRST PART, —and— ROSS CULTRERA, of the Borough of East York, in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, (hereinafter called ‘‘the Vendor”) OF THE SECOND PART, —and— SEAL-TOP PAVING & CONSTRUCTION LIMITED, a Company incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario, (hereinafter called “the Company”) OF THE THIRD PART. ...

Contentions It was the position of the appellant that: — in September 1973, she was wrongfully removed against her will from her dual role as a director of and manager of the assets of McDonald Holdings Ltd, which positions she had a right to retain for life by an agreement between herself, McDonald Holdings Ltd and her children, which had been a pre-condition to her entering into an estate-freeze of her shares in McDonald Holdings Ltd; —the said amount of $14,107 received by her was for damages for breach of contract and was therefore capital in nature; — in the alternative, if there is not found to be contract of the nature as alleged, which is not admitted but is specifically denied, her children caused McDonald Holdings Ltd to pay the said amount to her as gifts for the care, maintenance and support and, as such, were payments of a capital nature. ... —Such termination was within the authority and capacity of Holdings. — No settlement or financial arrangement was made with the appellant by Holdings upon termination at September 20, 1973. ... —On December 11, 1973, the arrangement described in these proceedings calling for payment of a “retirement allowance” to the appellant was approved by the directors of Holdings. — Holdings had the authority and capacity to award such a retirement allowance. ...

They were all major shareholders in Ker & Stephenson Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of British Columbia, having its registered office in Victoria, British Columbia. The said agreement reads as follows: Whereas, the shareholders are the major shareholders in Ker & Stephenson Limited, a company duly incorporated under the laws of the Province of British Columbia, and having its registered office at 680 Broughton Street, in the City of Victoria, in the Province of British Columbia, (hereinafter referred to as the “Company”); And whereas, it is the desire of the shareholders that upon the death of any of them, the shares of common stock of the company which are owned by such deceased shareholder at the time of his death, shall be purchased by the surviving shareholders, except the said Alfred John Ferguson Roberts; And whereas, the shareholders have requested the secretary for the time being of Ker & Stephenson Limited, presently Robert T. ... (c) The surviving shareholders shall pay the purchase price of the said shares to the personal representative of the deceased shareholder, as follows: (i) A sum equivalent to one-third (%) of the value thereof shall be payable to the personal representative of the deceased shareholder, in cash, within six (6) months following the death of the deceased shareholder, provided however, that in the event the Estate Tax assessment has not been made and accepted by the personal representative of the deceased shareholder, within the said six (6) months, the required one-third (‘/3) payment shall be made upon acceptance of such assessment by the personal representatives. ...

On or about the end of January 1962 the group incorporated Buttle Lake Mining Company Limited (NPL) and sold its interest in the claims to the company — each member receiving 162,500 shares, all of which were placed in escrow. ... At about the same time C M Oliver & Co Ltd underwrote the sale of shares of Buttle Lake to the public and further underwritings by this stock brokerage firm were made in Buttle Lake’s shares in subsequent years. Number^ of Shares Proceeds 1963 14,300 $11,326.00 1965 11,500 4,197.50 1966 17,638 14,798.08 The appellant was at all material times a stock salesman and subsequently a partner in C M Oliver & Co Ltd. ...

Minister of National Revenue, [1978] CTC 2895, [1978] DTC 1637 Guy Tremblay [TRANSLATION] — This case was heard at Chicoutimi, Quebec, on October 17, 1977. 1. ... The respondent cited paragraphs 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(g) of the new Act: (e) Expenses of certain railway company employees employed away from ordinary residence or home terminal. — amounts disbursed by the taxpayer in the year for meals and lodging while employed by a railway company (i) away from his ordinary place of residence as a relieving telegrapher or station agent or on maintenance and repair work, or (ii) away from the municipality and the metropolitan area, if there is one, where his home terminal was located, and at a location from which, by reason of distance from the place where he maintained a self- contained domestic establishment in which he resided and actually supported a spouse or a person dependent upon him for support and connected with him by blood relationship, marriage or adoption, he could not reasonably be expected to return daily to that place, to the extent, that he has not been reimbursed and is not entitled to be reimbursed in respect thereof; (g) Transport employee’s expenses — where the taxpayer was an employee of a person whose principal business was passenger, goods, or passenger and goods transport and the duties of the employment required him, regularly, (i) to travel, away from the municipality where the employer’s establishment to which he reported for work was located and away from the metropolitan area, if there is one, where it was located, on vehicles used by the employer to transport the goods or passengers, and (ii) while so away from such municipality and metropolitan area, to make disbursements for meals and lodging, amounts so disbursed by him in the year to the extent that he has not been reimbursed and is not entitled to be reimbursed in respect thereof; These sections cannot apply since one of the required conditions is that the employer be a railway or transport company. ... The Board also considered the other paragraphs of section 8, but none of them can permit the appellant to. deduct any expenses in addition to those he has already deducted under paragraph 8(1)(a): (a) Employment expense deduction. — a single amount in respect of all offices and employments of the taxpayer, equal to the lesser of $150 and 3% of the aggregate of (i) his incomes for the year from all offices and employments (other than the office of a corporation director) before making any deduction under this section, and (ii) all amounts included in computing his income for the year by virtue of paragraphs 56(1)(m) and (o); Thus in applying the Income Tax Act for the years in question, the Board has no choice but to uphold the assessments issued by the respondent. 5. ...

This question turns on whether the Reigate School of Art & Design is a designated educational institution within the meaning of paragraph 110(9)(a) of the Act. ...

Mr and Mrs Latta do not submit expense accounts for purposes of reimbursement of these promotional expenditures. — Both Mr and Mrs Latta are remunerated in the form of salaries for the above activities as well as for the management of the company. — The promotional expenditures are properly deductible for income tax purposes as evidenced by the consistent annual increases in sales volume. — Mrs Latta is a bona-fide employee and is engaged in gainful employment. ... The respondent contended that: (for the Company) — the appellant did not make the outlays of $3,600, $3,991, $5,130.65, $6,604.20 and $6,604.20 for the purpose of earning income from a business. — Mrs Latta did not carry on any business purpose in her use of the leased car. (for Latta) — the advances from Active and the portions of the leased auto payments were properly included in the appellant’s income. ...

Fred James Blackwell (: MRN, [1949] CTC 362; 49 DTC 677: Cour de l’Echiquier; 2. ... Axler & Palmer Limited c MRN, [1973] CTC 2167; 73 DTC 119; 6. Donald B MacDonald c MRN, [1974] CTC 2204; 74 DTC 1161; 7. ... La Commission encore une fois ne se croit pas liée par ces facteurs mais constate néanmoins que l’appelant rencontre presque tous ces facteurs: —autonomie dans le travail (voir paragraphe 3.06 des faits); — connaissance et formation appropriées (voir paragraphes 3.02 et 3.05 des faits); — caractère personnel des rapports avec les clients: cela s’infère de la nature du travail même et de l’ensemble de la preuve; — caractère confidentiel des renseignements (voir paragraphe 3.05 des faits). ...