Search - 屯门 安南都护府

Now, if I may just turn momentarily to paragraph 6(1)(a), it is my alternate submission that if the Board finds that it is not satisfied or he does not fall on these facts in paragraph 6(1)(e) and subsection 6(2), that the standby charge which has been assessed by the Minister should be included in his income pursuant to 6(1)(a) as the value of the benefit that he received from the use of this car, and that is consistent with the approach that was adopted in Bouchard — in Harman, and is referred to in Bouchard. ... It strikes me, however, that any alternative argument proposed by the respondent under paragraph 6(1)(a) would be identical for all practical purposes to the contention of the taxpayer in this appeal — that he wished to be assessed under paragraph 6(1)(a). Any alternative argument advanced by counsel now under paragraph 6(1)(a) might be debatable — the amount at issue has been assessed as a stand-by charge under paragraph 6(1)(e) and not as a benefit under paragraph 6(1)(a). ...

The appellant retained the services of Penny & Keenleyside Appraisals Ltd to establish a value of the subject land. ... Mr Penny concluded that the value of the property was $2000 per unit ($2000 X 482 = $964,000). On the basis of his comparable sales, Mr Folstad arrived at a basic value of $1.80 per square foot ($1.80 X 361,579 = $650,000±). ...

I would point out — although perhaps it is not necessary for me to do so — that there was nothing unusual or improper in the manner in which this was done. ...

The appellant also referred to s 101 of the CIDA Regulations. 4.2 The only case law cited by the parties was: — Paul E Peterson v MNR, [1969] Tax ABC 682; 69 DTC 503; — Rémi Bouchard v MNR, [1978] CTC 2071; 78 DTC 1074. ...

In Heap & Partners (Nfld) Limited v MNR, 42 Tax ABC 278; 66 DTC 772, the Tax Appeal Board decided that payments made by the parent company to cover guaranteed loans to its subsidiary were made for producing income and were deductible. ... These loans were the only working capital the American subsidiary ever had with the exception of the sum of $1,000 invested by Stewart & Morrison Limited for the acquisition of all of the issued share capital of its subsidiary. The money was lost and the losses were capital losses to Stewart & Morrison Limited. ...

IRC v Paget, 1938, 1 All ER 392; Wigmore v Thomas Sommerson & Sons (1926), 1 KB 131; No 729 v MNR, 26 Tax ABC 107; 61 DTC 137. ... Frederick T Smye Turning finally to the specifics of this particular appeal, the essential evidence as understood by the Board is as follows: —The appellant is an insurance salesman; — In early December 1975, he ordered $27,000 of Government of Canada bonds from McLeod, Young, Weir & Company Limited, stockbrokers; —On December 12, 1975, he paid $27,965.34 by certified cheque (including an amount for accrued interest); — He took possession of the bonds on that date; —The bond numbers were: F56E15458, E15193, 006780, 006651, 004907, 006627, 006748. — He delivered them to his bank the same day as quickly as possible. ... A.... the amount of the cheque had to be for the twenty-seven (thousand) nine sixty-five and if there actually was a loan, | really can’t say. ...

In assessing, the respondent relied upon the following assumptions of fact: — Pour les années d’impositions en cause, soit 1968 à 1973, l’Appelant n’a pas déclaré tous les montants de revenu qu’il devait déclarer; —Ces montants de revenu totalisent une somme de $132,722.82, telle que calculée par conciliation de capital, telle que produite à la présente Réponse pour valoir comme si récitée au long; — L’Intimé ajouta donc une somme de $17,327.46 de revenu pour chacune des années d’imposition de 1968 à 1971 et un montant de $31,706.48 pour chacune des années 1972 et 1973 et émit une nouvelle cotisation en conséquence. — During the taxation years in question, 1968 to 1973, the appellant did not declare all the amounts of revenue which he should have declared; —These amounts of revenue totalled $132,722.82, as calculated by “reconciliation of capital” (not attached—but they were: 1968 to 1973—$69,309.86 and 1972 and 1973—$63,412.96). ... —Au cours des années 1968 à 1971, (’Appelant a gagné une somme de $10,000 en jouant aux cartes. — During those years an amount of about $60,000 was left with the appellant in order that he would be the trustee of it. — During those years the appellant contracted a loan of approximately $62,606, which in turn he loaned to a third party, namely ‘‘Bar Horizon Inc”. — During the years 1968 to 1971, the appellant gained an amount of $10,000 by playing cards.) ... Despite the reluctance of Mr Daoust to sustain one position, / am satisfied that he received the cash from Charron at the time of endorsement, and that he received $1,000, not $1,175, which was the face value of the cheque. ...

. — By an agreement dated July 4, 1969, the taxpayers as equal partners purchased Part of Lot 3, 4, and 5, Concession 2, in the Township of Hope, know as the Belmont Farm, comprising 215.244 acres more or less for the amount of $100,000 (the property). ... The cost of this preparation initially was in excess of $900. — Immediately after acquisition, the taxpayers began advertising the property as Belmont Park, a showmobile area. ... —On February 9,1972, the building was totally demolished in a fire, with the loss of the entire investment therein. — Following on from the fire, and a loss of the proposed principal residence of the taxpayers, it became essential to reconstruct or construct a residence. ...

Net income declared $403,272 Deduct: Taxable capital gain reported 313,898 $ 89,374 Add: Income from expropriation and sale of Markham property $4,163,240 Less: Reserve under Para. 20(1)(n) 68,332 $4,094,908 Revised net income $4,184,282 Contentions It was contented on behalf of the company that: — All of the shares of the taxpayer are beneficially owned for members of the family of von Thurn and Taxis (hereinafter referred to as “the family”). ... —On March 27, 1975 an agreement was reached with the company establishing a consideration in the amount of $1,529,100 for the properties in Concession 10 which had been expropriated. — By an agreement the properties in Concession 9 were sold to the Province of Ontario on March 27, 1975, for a total consideration of $3,394,100. —As a result of the said expropriation and sale to the Province of Ontario on March 27, 1975, the company realized a profit (after certain expenses) in the amount of $4,163,240. — During the period that the company owned the said properties, it realized no net income or profit from the rentals of the said properties. ...

In the respondent’s assessment, proceeds of disposition in the amount of $305,557.07 were allocated as follows: Residence Excess Total Total One acre and Principal Residence $31,967.00 $207,086.25 $239,053.25 Decision #4 — Inconvenience 3,000.00 3,000.00 Decision #2 — Normal Disturbance 553.00 3,702.00 4,255.00 5% Interest 7,702.34 51,546.48 59,248.82 Total Proceeds $43,222.34 $262,334.73 $305,557.07 In the notice of appeal and at the hearing, the appellant contended that the disturbance allowance in the amount of $4,255 was not correctly prorated in applying $553 to the residence and $3,702 to the excess farmland. ...