Search - 屯门 安南都护府

Contentions The appellant contended that: — although only one annuity was purchased from the Company in 1973, the funds to so do came from two distinctly different sources—the registered pension plan funds, and the previously held RRSP’s; — the subsequent income tax amendment (section 110.2) upon which the Minister relies discriminates against the income from one original source (the RRSP’s); —the $1,000 exemption claimed should be allowed at least with reference to the income generated from the funds originating in the registered pension plan. ...

. — Even if there was a transfer or assignment of the said bonds, the appellants earned no interest from the ownership of the said bonds, but in fact all interest that accrued prior to the date of the assignment or transfer of the bonds to the appellants was capital in the hands of the appellants, and not interest within the meaning of paragraph 12(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. — No interest from the said bonds was receivable by the appellants in 1975 within the meaning of paragraph 12(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act and therefore the appellants are not entitled to a deduction pursuant to section 110.1 of the Income Tax Act. ...

For the respondent: —The appellant realized income in the year in the amount of $89,549.63 from the sale of securities; — By a memorandum of agreement (Agreement) dated January 28, 1969, the appellant agreed with Kidd Copper Mines Limited (Kidd) and Sand Bay Investments Limited (Sand Bay) to carry out certain operations with respect to a project known as the Spanish River Mine (Spanish River); — Pursuant to the agreement, Kidd agreed to pay the appellant its operating costs plus equipment rentals plus 10% for overhead profit; —The appellant earned an overhead profit in the amount of $63,110.56 in its 1969 taxation year pursuant to the said memorandum of agreement; —The said profit was not earned by the appellant in connection with the operation of a mine; —The said profit was not earned by the appellant during a period of exemption under subsubsection 83(5) of the pre-1972 Income Tax Act’, —The appellant has knowingly or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence made an omission in a return as a result of which the tax that would have been payable by it for a taxation year, if the tax had been assessed on the basis of the information provided in the return, is less than the tax payable by it for the year. ...

Conversely, the Minister made the following assumptions: —in 1971, the appellant purchased a lot in the City of London, constructed a semidetached duplex and upon completion rented the premises municipally known as 203-205 Taylor Street until 1972, when he sold it in the 1972 taxation year for a net loss of $1,056.46; —on or about the 5th day of April, 1972, the appellant purchased for rental purposes a six-plex building municipally known as 22 Langton Road, London, and, on or about November 21, 1972, he sold it by way of trade for a premises municipally known as 1238 Sparton Street, London, in the 1972 taxation year for a net loss of $905.54; — in 1972, the appellant purchased a 12 unit apartment municipally known as 1576 Caledonia Street, London, and in the latter part of the 1972 year he sold it by way of trade for a permises municipally known as 308 Egerton Street, London, in the 1972 taxation year for a net gain of $4,465.12; —on or about November 23, 1972, the appellant purchased by way of trade, a 15 unit apartment building municipally known as 308 Egerton Street, London, and on or about March 20, 1973, he sold it in the 1973 taxation year for a net gain of $3,809.25; —on or about November 21, 1972, the appellant purchased by way of trade a single family dwelling municipally known as 1238 Sparton Street, London, and, on or about February 15, 1973, he sold it in the 1973 taxation year for a net loss of $663.65; — in the 1972 and 1973 taxation years, the appellant realized net gains of $2,503.12 and $3,145.60 respectively on the sales of the aforesaid properties; —the appellant dealt in the aforesaid properties in the 1972 and 1973 taxation years in the same way that a regular trader in property of the same type would ordinarily do; —a motivating factor of the appellant at the time of the acquisition of the aforesaid properties was the possibility of resale at a profit, and the properties were purchased or acquired with a view to dealing in, trading in, or otherwise turning the same to account for profit. ...

Subsequent to Mr J B Feehan being appointed to the District Court of Alberta, Mousseau along with Remesz carried on the practice of law under the name and style of Remesz & Mousseau. 5. ... Then, according to an undated letter filed as Exhibit R-2, the appellant wrote to the Department of National Revenue to state that the firm of Remesz & Mousseau ceased business operations as at March 31, 1974. ...

The portion of interest expense disallowed by the Minister for each of the taxation years in question was calculated in the following manner, if one uses 1970 as an example: In 1970 the appellant’s drawings were: $43,573 His net professional income as declared was: $37,165 $ 6,408 The appellant’s demand loan balance as ai December 31, 1970 was: $11,216 The interest expense claimed by the taxpayer was: $1,419 Interest expense disallowed $ 6,408 x $1,419 $11,216 $811 The amounts of $357 and $1,525 disallowed for the 1971 and 1972 taxation years were calculated on the same basis. ...

The appellant who is a resident of Edmonton was employed, in the year pertinent to this appeal, as foreman in charge of ten electricians at a power plant construction project at Sundance, Alberta by Hume & Rumble Ltd. ... Notwithstanding the fact that the head office of Hume & Rumble Ltd was in some city other than Sundance, or that the company was engaged at other construction sites, the company’s place of business for which the appellant was employed and where he actually worked was at Sundance. ...

To recover suites using standard materials a) Labour $150.00 b) Cushions—$5.00 each plus 5% tax 27.25 c) Material—11 yards average @ $6.95 plus tax 80.27 $257.42 2. ... ABC 1135;.71 DTC 767; \, MNR v Haddon Hall Realty Inc, [1961] CTC. 509: 62 DTC 1001. ...

In assessing the appellant the Minister found that the appellant had failed to include the following amounts in computing his income: 1969 $ 6,500 1970 $13,500 1971 $13,500 1972 $ 4,500 The Minister added the above amounts to the appellant’s income for each of the taxation years respectively and imposed a penalty of $250.84 for the appellant’s omission in not reporting income in the amount of $6,500 for the 1969 taxation year. ...

The claims were disallowed on assessment on the basis that the truck was not “... used by him (the appellant)... primarily for the purpose of... logging.. within the meaning of subparagraph 127(10)(c)(vii) of the Act. ...