Search - 微信撤回和删除的区别 官方

The employer provided a room in his own offices and did not require her to have an office at her residence, which was at 430 rue St-Alexandre, Longueuil, Quebec. 3.4 The appellant claimed certain expenses against her gross income for 1972 and 1973, and these were disallowed or admitted by the respondent as shown in the following table: Gross Expenses Expenses Expenses Income Claimed Disallowed Allowed Allowed 1972 $13,590.87 $3,505.73 $1,550.47 $1,955.26 1973 $25,630.02 $7,419.07 $3,923.41 $3,495.66 3.5 The expenses claimed and disallowed are shown in more detail below: (1972) (1973) Claimed Disallowed Claimed Disallowed (A) Depreciation of furniture $ 81.10 $ 81.10 $ 64.88 $ 64.88 (B) Insurance 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 (C) Commissions, gratuities, tips 130.00 65.00 960.00 860.00 (D) Gifts, advertising expenses, signs 367.00 292.00 502.23 402.23 (E) Entertainment expenses 541.15 271.15 981.58 491.58 (F) Equipment rental (Bell Boy) 216.00 Nil 328.00 Nil (G) Stationery, circulars, reference books and office expenses 258.98 258.98 613.62 613.62 (H) Taxis 82.00 41.00 102.00 51.00 (I) Telephone, telegrams 117.35 57.35 168.65 83.65 (J) Car $1,689.53 (1972) less personal use (25%) $422.38 1,689.53 1,267.15 Car $4,273.11 (1973) less personal use (12 weeks at $50) $600 4,273.11 3,673.11 The appellant stated as regards the car expenses that she used the car seven days a week for business purposes. 3.6 The appellant stated in her testimony that when she filed her tax returns for 1972 and 1973 she had most of the vouchers, which were stored in a filing cabinet in her basement. ...

The lease was for five years plus two five-year options (Exhibit A-1-16 — Lease). ... (Testimony of I Adelson, p 102-103) 3.39 By admission from counsel for the respondent, Mr Adelson’s testimony with respect to the first payment, ie, $15,000 for Granby, was made equally applicable to the other two payments and his testimony was corroborated by Mr David Nussbaum (Testimony of I Adelson, p 107 and testimony of D Nussbaum, p 116). 3.40 By notices of reassessment for its 1976 and 1977 taxation years and by notice of assessment for its 1978 taxation year, the payments were allocated by the respondent in the following manner: Amounts received from the Shopping Centres to be used to reduce rental expenses as follows: Year Granby Granby Terrebonne St-Jérôme Total Total (1) (2) (3) d) 1975 $ 902.00 — — $ 902.00 1976 983.52 $ 4,833.00 — 6,816.52 1977 983.52 7,000.00 $ 1,800.00 9,783.52 1978 983.52 7,000.00 3,600.00 11,583.52 1979 983.52 7,000.00 3,600.00 11,583.52 1980 1,830.60 7,000.00 3,600.00 12,430.60 1981 2,000.00 1,167.00 3,600.00 6,767.00 1982 2,000.00 — 3,600.00 5,600.00 1983 2,000.00 — 600.00 2,600.00 1984 2,000.00 — — 2,000.00 1985 332.32 — — 333.32 $15,000.00 $34,000.00 $20,400.00 $70,400.00 3.41 The basis for the respondent’s treatment of these payments is explained by Mr Roy in his testimony where he states: Q Pourriez-vous expliquer à la Commission sur quels faits le Ministère s’est fondé pour arriver à la conclusion que ces montants étaient en fait une réduction de loyer? ... British Insulated & Helsby Cables Ltd v Atherton, [1926] AC 205; 29. ...

Exhibit A-4 is a summary of the appellant’s income for the taxation year 1970 and reads as follows: SUMMARY Queensview Apartments Partnership Gross Rentals $734,894 Expenses 637,559 Net Earnings $ 97,335 Arthur Hailey Ltd. share from 1 January 1970- 19 November 1970 @ 17.289% = $14,846 Elphin Apartments Partnership Gross Rentals $298,007 Expenses 299,586 Loss ($1,579) Interest 3,734 Net Earnings $ 2,155 Arthur Hailey Ltd. share from 1 January 1970- 19 November 1970 @ 10.60% =±- 202 English Property Rentals 700 TOTAL: $15,748. Arthur Hailey Ltd Gross Revenue Literary Royalties $214,202.65 Dividends 2,127.82 Interest 9,290.18 Rents: — Queensview Partnership 14,846.43 — Elphin Partnership 202. — English Property 700. ... RENTAL INCOME 734,894 702,015 EXPENSES Advertising 2,994 2,729 Bad debts and collection costs 1,088 926 Bus and car 5,050 4,434 Cablevision 10,689 3,170 Cleaning supplies 2,943 3,759 Elevator maintenance and repairs 5,975 6,770 Employees’ benefits 5,848 5,923 Equipment maintenance and repairs 3,713 2,242 General 3,615 3,077 Hydro, gas and water 73,537 75,746 Insurance 3,896 3,692 Interest and bank charges 13,194 6,988 Maintenance and repairs 21,876 20,216 Management fees 29,396 28,056 Mortgage interest 210,516 216,715 Parking lot — 728 Printing, postage and stationery 1,622 2,391 Professional fees 4,819 4,498 Property taxes 125,285 118,217 Redecorating and painting 4,880 4,451 Refuse disposal 3,313 4,446 Salaries and wages 90,680 79,326 Security 9,003 8,664 Telephone 1,575 1,621 Travel 2,052 1,426 637,559 610,211 NET EARNINGS FOR THE YEAR (note 1) 97,335 91,804 Owners’ Equity, beginning of year 434,429 242,625 531,764 334,429 Capital contribution (withdrawal) (33,333) 100,000 OWNERS’ EQUITY, END OF YEAR $498,431 $434,429 Exhibit A-5 is a partnership agreement dated July 15, 1968 with respect to “Elphin Apartments”. ...

In assessing the appellant for the 1978 taxation year, the respondent, the Minister of National Revenue, relied on the following facts, inter alia: (a) The appellant’s net income for each of the 1974 to 1978 taxation years was as follows: 1974 $250,910 1975 $ 30,762 1976 $ 32,298 1977 $ 35,568 1978 $ 42,764 (b) For the 1978 taxation year the appellant did the general averaging tax calculation on form T-2077; (c) In his 1978 general averaging tax calculation, the appellant erroneously used the tax tables instead of the 1978 rates of federal income tax; (d) The appellant’s basic federal tax for the 1978 taxation year computed using general averaging is $9,487.61, the same amount as the appellant’s basic federal tax computed using the 1978 rates of federal income tax provided for in section 117 of the Income Tax Act: (e) It is of no advantage to the appellant to use general averaging in computing the tax he owes for the 1978 taxation year. 3. ... Act — Analysis 4.01 Act The principal provisions involved in this case are sections 117 and 118. ...

When the appellant was presented with a document, attached to an income tax return, entitled “Income Statement — Period January 1, 1974-December 31, 1974”, showing income from sales of houses, she said that this was an error on the part of the accountant, although her company had dealt with a reputable chartered accountant firm for years. ... As at December 31, 1972, the appellant was the owner in her own right, of 61 properties and the respondent, in his reply to notice of appeal, alleges that: (d) The appellant sold properties as follows: Number of Properties Total Total Total Total To tai Year Sold Sold Proceeds Costs Costs Gains Gains 1970 2 $ 26,200 $ 22,302 $ 3,898 1971 3 57,280 45,558 11,722 1972 4 74,560 62,134 12,516 1973 4 111,338 91,381 19,957 1974 1 26,500 15,500 11,000 1975 7 242,485 129,006 113,479 In all the years, excepting for the years in question, mainly 1973 and 1975, the appellant reported the profits from the sale of properties as income. ... The following cases were cited to me by the learned counsel for the appellant: Everlease (Ontario) Limited v MNR, [1968] Tax ABC 162; 68 DTC 180; Hiwako Investments Limited v The Queen, [1978] CTC 378; 78 DTC 6281; S & S Properties Ltd v The Queen, [1978] CTC 412; 78 DTC 6294, Regner Blok-Andersen v MNR, [1972] CTC 338; 72 DTC 6309. ...

Gross Expenses and Net Sales Profits Depreciation Income 1973 $186,016.81 $12,259.33 $ 7,358.87 $ 4,900.46 1974 299,856.87 30,285.03 9,719.81 20,565.22 1975 373,960.03 32,428.64 14,438.58 17,990.06 3.05 Mrs Marie Fernande Lahaie, the appellant’s wife, testified that she was a pump attendant and secretary and kept the books. ... These figures were taken from the balance sheet prepared by the respondent’s accountant and admitted by the appellant’s accountant. 3.10 During 1977 the respondent’s auditors, as the result of a net worth audit, established the following additional income: 1973: $12,166.23 1974: $17,043.61 1975: $ 7,830.27 3.11 These additional amounts of income were admitted by the appellant. 3.12 Evidence was further presented that, during the years in question the appellant purchased bank certificates and reduced mortgages in the following amounts: Reduced Certificates Mortgages 1973 $ 2,100 $ 7,000 1974 13,000 12,000 1975 Nil 6,000 4. ...

Although there may exist some business advantages to be gained by their separate existence, there also exist some major fiscal advantages which, in my opinion, were seriously considered in making that arrangement. 19 In Annex B of Exhibit R-13, the following is recorded: Taxable Income 1967 1968 1969 1970 "WEE" $25,573.00 $19,461.00 $ 5,415.00 $33,992.00 "ABC" 24,439.00 35,874.00 28,457.00 25,353.00 "MONTREAL BABY"-- 4,607.00 16,962.00 21,167.00-------------------------------------------------- $50,012.00 $59,942.00 $50,834.00 $80,512.00 Additional Taxes Income taxable at 40% instead of 11% if subsection 138A(2) is applied on above income for 1967–68–69–70: 1967 $50,012.00 35,000.00---------- $15,012.00 @ 29% $ 4,353.00 1968 $59,942.00 35,874.00---------- $24,068.00 @ 29% 6,980.00 1969 $50,834.00 35,000.00---------- $15,834.00 @ 29% 4,592.00 1970 $80,512.00 55,159.00---------- $25,353.00 @ 29% 7,352.00---------- TOTAL TAXES INVOLVED $23,277.00 20 If subsection 138A(2) were applied and ABC Diaper Service Inc were to be associated with Wee Folks, the total tax payable would then be $23,277. ...

To received from Alex Jovanovich — re: balance due on closing as per Statement of Adjustments $79,655.53 To paid to The Royal Bank of Canada — re: pay out of existing Agreement re Lodgement of Title Documents — as per telephone call made July 28/78 $22,544.23 To paid to E J Rutherford Real Estate Inc — re: balance of real estate commission 4,294.00 To paid to Hart & Parkhill — re: account for fees & dis bursements 380.29 To paid balance in trust a/c to Mr and Mrs Eelkema via deposit to a/c #518-598-8 at Royal Bank, Main Br, Strat ford — July 28/78 52,437.01 $79,655.53 $79,655.53 3.05 Moreover, from the amount of $52,437.01 deposited in the appellant’s bank account #518-598-8 at the Royal Bank, the appellant, on August 1, 1978, paid $20,000 to Stratford Truck Ltd as a loan. ... After the payment on his new home with the said sum, if he had borrowed money for his business needs (to reimburse the banks, etc — see para 3.04), then the interest on the borrowed money would have been deductible. The appellant contends that this is only a technical proceeding and that, in substance, the result is the same — he has to pay interest. 4.03.3 It is true that the final result is the same: the appellant has to pay interest. ...

(b) The Appellant and his partner formed a company named A & B Office Equipment & Leasing Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the com- pany”). ... (b) The opening balance sheet of A & B Office Equipment & Leasing Company Limited as at March 31, 1971. (c) Notes to the opening balance sheet of A & B Equipment & Leasing Company Limited as at March 31, 1971. ...

The appellant served notice of objection within the prescribed time and following confirmation of the assessments by the respondent, appealed therefrom to this court; In his reply to the notice of appeal, paragraph 10, subparagraphs (b) to (k) inclusive and (n) to (q) inclusive read as follows: [Translation] (b) By virtue of these letters patent, the appellant has the following powers inter alia: To acquire in any way whatsoever, establish, lease, operate, administer, develop, sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of and mortgage all manner of real property; to acquire, build, operate, administer, sell and otherwise dispose of all manner of buildings and constructions; to buy and sell building materials; (...) ... (g) Since its incorporation, the appellant has made a number of major land and property purchases: Year Description Cost 1972 Lot and building, 3220 Chemin des Quatre-Bourgeois, Ste-Foy $ 123,000 Lot, Boulevard Masson (les Saules sector) $ 38,855.71 1973 Lot, Les Saules, Québec $ 4,048.49 Lot and building, 955 de Bourgogne, Ste-Foy $ 250,800 Lot, 3220 Chemin des Quatre-Bourgeois, Ste-Foy $ 5,972 1974 Lot Ste-Foy, Quebec $ 17,559 Lot Les Saules, Quebec $ 1,137 1975 Lot Ste-Foy, Quebec $ 2,858 Lot Les Saules, Quebec $ 2,867 1976 Lot Ste-Foy, Quebec $ 1,747 Lot Les Saules, Quebec $ 3,609 (h) The building situated at 3220 Chemin des Quatre-Bourgeois was sold 24 months following its purchase, while the building situated at 955 de Bourgogne was sold 5 months after its purchase; (i) The buildings whose disposition has given rise to the instant case were situated in an area of Quebec City that is the subject of intense land speculation; (j) The reason put forward by the appellant in justification of its sale of the building situated at 3220 Chemin des Quatre-Bourgeois (the failure of IBM Ltd to renew its lease) is of little validity and does not amount to frustration of the appellant’s original intention. ... In the case at bar, the method of financing, the experience of the majority shareholders involved in the buying and selling of lots through two other companies, the short period during which the appellant owned the buildings and lots, the lack of perseverance in the pursuit of its aims, the speculation-prone area in which the buildings and lots were acquired — all these factors would suggest that the appellant has failed to rebut the presumption of speculative motives that weighed against it. ...