Search - 微信撤回和删除的区别 官方

It was agreed between the parties that in 1974 the appellant had indicated in filing his tax return that only 50% of the disputed income should be for his account — again presumably the balance belonging to his wife. There was no other evidence or testimony which would substantiate the appellant’s contention — a point underscored forcibly by counsel for the respondent. In the appellant’s tax return for 1974, the following information was included: JAYLAND HOMES SCHEDULE OF TAXABLE INCOME MARCH 31, 1974 Add Deduct Reserve Reserve 20(1)(n) 20(1)(n) Net Income Income Tax Income Tax For Act Act Act Act Taxable % Year 1973 1974 Income Jetland Construction Limited 50 $242,076 $ 22,114 $ 51,839 $212,351 Vittorio Maggiori, Trustee 10 48,416 4,423 10,367 42,472 Northdown Drywall & Construction Limited 10 48,415 4,423 10,367 42,471 Jay-Win Investments Limited 10 48,416 4,423 10,367 42,472 Mark-Malcom Limited 10 48,415 4,423 10,367 42,471 Robland Estates Limited 10 48,415 4,422 10,367 42,470 100 $484,153 $ 44,228 $103,674 $424,707 As noted above, the taxpayer had included only the amount of $21,236 as such income from Jayland Homes. ...

TDL 1972 1972 1973 1973 1974 1974 Legal fees of Gowling & Henderson — $16,500.00 $10,857.00 Legal fees of Hughes, Laishley $3,646.50 16,055.03 2,246.00 Fees paid to The Clarkson Company Limited — 39,055.47 — ACL 1972 1972 1973 1973 1974 1974 Legal fees of Gowling & Henderson $6,283.91 $ 3,000.00 $10,844.14 Legal fees of Hughes, Laishley 6,510.50 3,000.00 21,813.59 Further, the respondent assessed each individual appellant herein on the basis that legal expenses were incurred by each one qua shareholder and when same were paid by the company a benefit was conferred on the individual appellant and the benefit (being a pro rata of the legal fees paid by the company) was added to her or his declared income in accordance with the provisions of subsection 15(1) of the Income Tax Act. ... Gloria Assaly consulted Messrs Gowling & Henderson, as did Thomas C Assaly. ... The Local Master appointed Messrs Thorne, Gunn & Company (see Exhibit A-16). ...

Crops and Seeds — All Wheat $ 1,333.12 — Barley 1,117.90 2. Western Grain Stabilization Payments 25.57 3. Livestock Sold — Cattle (19) 7,386.81 4. Other Subsidies — Pipeline Easement 469.00 5. ... Law — Cases at Law — Analysis 4.01 Law The main provision of the Income Tax Act involved is subsection 31(1). ...

He calculated the percentage as follows: Business percentage 5 739 ^- = 61.7%, therefore personal portion is 38.3% 9,298 In 1978 the total miles put on his vehicle was 11,595 and the total business miles was 5,545. He calculated the percentage as follows: Business percentage 5,545 J-x = 47.8%, therefore personal portion is 52.2% 11,595 The relevant sections involved are subparagraphs 6(1)(b)(v) and (vil), paragraph 8(1)(h), subsection 8(2) and section 67 of the Income Tax Act, which read as follows: 6. (1) There shall be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year as income from an office or employment such of the following amounts as are applicable: (b) all amounts received by him in the year as an allowance for any other purpose, except (v) reasonable allowances for travelling expenses received by an employee from his employer in respect of a period when he was employed in connection with the selling of property or negotiating of contracts forhisemployer, (vii) allowances (not in excess of reasonable amounts) for travelling expenses received by an employee (other than an employee employed in connection with the selling of property or negotiating of contracts for his employer) from his employer if they were computed by reference to time actually spent by the employee travelling away from (A) the municipality where the employer’s establishment at which the employee ordinarily worked or to which he ordinarily made his reports was located, and (B) the metropolitan area, if there is one, where that establishment was located, in the performance of the duties of his office or employment, 8. (1) In computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from an office or employment, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as are wholly applicable to that source or such part of the following amounts as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto: (h) where the taxpayer, in the year, (i) was ordinarily required to carry on the duties of his employment away from his employer’s place of business or in different places, (ii) under the contract of employment was required to pay the travelling expenses incurred by him in the performance of the duties of his office or employment, and (iii) was not in receipt of an allowance for travelling expenses that was, by virtue of subparagraph 6(1)(b)(v, (vi) or (vil), not included in computing his income and did not claim any deduction for the year under paragraph (e), (f) or (g), amounts expended by him in the year for travelling in the course of his employment; 8. (2) Except as permitted by this section, no deductions shall be made in computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from an office or employment. 67. ...

He further added to and reduced income from fees, as appears below and these amounts are on appeal 1973 1974 1974 1975 1975 (a) 1st reassessment Unreported fees $15,452.75 $2,340.24 $2,710.00 (b) 2nd reassessment Reduction of fees ($ 2,691.19) (1,046.26) Addition to fees $1,053.08 $12,761.56 $1,293.98 $3,763.08 3.04 The appellant testified that the reported income was compiled based on two ordinary bank accounts and a bank account in trust. ... Act — case law — comments 4.1 Act The legal provisions concerned in the case at bar are ss 3, 9 and 34 of the Income Tax Act. ... The amount by which the income was reduced — namely $11,661.56 ($12,761.56 less $1,200 ($400 + $700) = $11,661.56)- is sufficiently large to indicate more than ordinary negligence, that is, gross negligence. 5. ...

His reported financial results from the activity were as follows: 1975 1976 Gross Revenues $13,791.50 $14,789.76 Expenses $ 8,996.70 $ 7,486.61 Net Profit $ 4,794.79 $ 7,303.15 It was common ground that the appellant was self-employed, was taxable on the profits from his business and was not subject to the restrictive provisions of the Income Tax Act which govern the computation of income from employment. ...

Yours sincerely, Jean-Yves Sirois Secretary-T reasurer For: BETON PROVINCIAL LTEE cc: B Lévesques Montreal Orens Gadreau Outardes — II L Normandeau Montreal Paul Gremeaux Outardes — II 4.15 The contract made provision (pages E-15, E-16 and E-17, clauses 17 and 18 of Exhibit A-1) for a variation in the base unit price of a cubic yard of concrete. ... Act — Case Law — Analysis 5.01 Act The principal legal provisions of the new Income Tax Act involved in the case at bar are paragraphs 12(1)(a) and (b). These paragraphs read as follows: 12. (1) There shall be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year as income from a business or property such of the following amounts as are applicable: (a) any amount received by the taxpayer in the year in the course of a business (i) that is on account of services not rendered or goods not delivered before the end of the year or that, for any other reason, may be regarded as not having been earned in the year or a previous year, or (ii) under an arrangement or understanding that it is repayable in whole or in part on the return or resale to the taxpayer of articles in or by means of which goods were delivered to a customer; (b) any amount receivable by the taxpayer in respect of property sold or services rendered in the course of a business in the year, notwithstanding that the amount or any part thereof is not due until a subsequent year, unless the method adopted by the taxpayer for computing income from the business and accepted for the purpose of this Part does not require him to include any amount receivable in computing his income for a taxation year unless it has been received in the year; 5.02 Case Law The parties referred the Board to the following case law and authorities: 1. — HMQ v Lagueux & Frères Inc, [1974] CTC 687; 74 DTC 6569; 2. — Thibault v Auger, [1950] CS 343; 3. — Carey v Carey, 42 CS 471; 4. — Kenneth B S Robertson Ltd v MNR, [1944] CTC 75; 2 DTC 655; 5. — Sandy v Yukon Construction Co Ltd, [1961] 26 DLR (2d) 254; 6. — Terreau et Racine Limitée v Trudel, [1963] CS 271; 7. — Mathers v Peltier Handling Equipment Co Ltd, [1970] CA 1; 8. — Lebel v St-Georges, [1961] CS 66; 9. — Emond et al v Saad (1927), 65 CS 188; 10. — Morissette v Beaudet et Archambault (1928), 45 QB 73; 11. — Grover v Stirling Bonding Co, [1935] 3 DLR 481; Type of Contract: Supplier of Materials 12. — L’Union Canadienne Co d’Assurancea v Structal Inc, [1973] CA 1051; Amounts Receivable: Income Tax Act 13. — MNR v Benaby Realties Ltd, [1967] CTC 418; 67 DTC 5275; 14. — MNR v John Col ford Contracting Co Ltd, [1962] CTC 546; 62 DTC 1338; 15. — J L Guay Ltée v MNR, [1971] CTC 686; 71 DTC 5423; 16. — Maple Leaf Mills Limited v MNR, [1976] CTC 324; 76 DTC 6182; 17. — Marvin L Hannem v MNR, [1980] CTC 2089; 80 DTC 1091. ...

In carrying out his business... the appellant incurred expenses in the aggregate amounts of 1974 — $4,478.08 1975 — 5,112.34 1976 — 9,506.01 The Minister of National Revenue... permitted the appellant to deduct expenses of $150 in computing his income from his business. ... In the end result, it was agreed between the parties that the following statements represented a summary of the amounts involved in the appellant’s contention that he was in business: 1974 EXPENSES — BOAT BUSINESS Type of Expense Amount Deducted Advertising, Promotion $ 239.69 Convention Expenses 265.32 Supplies, Materials 901.31 $1,406.32 1974 EXPENSES — DESIGN BUSINESS Type of Expense Amount Deducted Accounting, Legal, Collection $ 130,00 Automobile Expenses (gasoline, insurance, repairs) 1,078.97 Business Tax, Fees, Licences 25.00 Fire and Liability Insurance 33.00 Interest, Exchange, Bank Charges 2.00 Office Expenses, Postage, Stationery 87.50 Rent: 2/6 of apartment rent & hydro 1,169.22 Telephone, Light, Heat, Water 99.12 Other Expenses: subscriptions 26.00 $2,650.81 Aggregate $4,057.13 Minister has allowed $150. If succeed on Design Business — allow additional $2,500.81 If succeed on Boat Business — allow additional $1,406.32 If succeed on both — add $3,907.13 1975 EXPENSES — BOAT BUSINESS Type of Expense Amount Deducted Advertising, Promotion $ 281.45 Business Tax, Fees, Licences 52.00 Convention Expenses 705.63 Rent: Workshop 300.00 Supplies, Materials 654.01 $1,993.09 1975 EXPENSES — DESIGN BUSINESS Type of Expense Amount Deducted Accounting, Legal, Collection $ 100.00 Automobile Expenses (gasoline, insurance repairs) 970.13 Fire and Liability Insurance 33.00 Interest, Exchange, Bank Charges 6.00 Office Expenses, Postage, Stationery 122.15 Rent: 2/6 of apartment 1,180.00 Telephone, Light, Heat, Water 141.85 Capital Cost Allowance 400.00 $2,953.13 Aggregate claimed $4,946.22 Amount allowed by Minister $150.00 If succeed on design business, allow additional $2,803.13 If succeed on boat business, allow additional $1,993.09 1976 EXPENSES — BOAT BUSINESS Type of Expense Amount Deducted Advertising, Promotion $ 176.43 Business Tax, Fees, Licenses 58.50 Interest, Exchange, Bank Charges 189.42 Maintenance and Repairs (except automobile, truck) 90.00 Rent (workshop) 800.00 Supplies, Materials 2,343.74 $3,658.09 1976 EXPENSES — DESIGN BUSINESS Type of Expense Amount Deducted Accounting, Legal, Collection $ 125.00 Automobile Expenses (gasoline, insurance, repairs) 2,092.24 Fire and Liability Insurance 33.00 Office Expenses, Postage, Stationery 75.79 Rent: 2/6 of apartment 1,274.40 Telephone, Light, Heat, Water: 2/6 of $600.38 200.13 Travelling Expenses (except automobile) 1, 114.03 Capital Cost Allowance 1,341.15 $6,255.74 Expenses claimed $9,913.83 Allowed by Minister $443.90 If successful on design business — allow additional $5,701.84 If successful on boat business — allow additional $3,658.09 Evidence With regard to the “boat interest”, the appellant reviewed his long standing interest in boating, the associations to which he belonged over the years, and his particular interest in building a “racing boat” which was the type in question in these appeals. ...

To demonstrate that the project was seriously considered, Mr Dumas submitted stationery with the letterhead ‘Place Henri IV’’ and a list of expenses (Exhibit A-17): EXPENSES 1—Robert Morin (accountant) $ 4.000.00 2—Begin, Charland, Valiquette (appraisers) $ 3.235.58 3—Duval, Grenier, Taschereau (notary) $ 2,580.00 4—School and municipal taxes $ 27,130.32 5—St-Gelais, Tremblay, Tremblay and L'Abbé (architect) $ 12,495.16 6—Cossette and Associates $ 145.42 7—André Blanchet (lawyer) $ 43,000.00 8—Thron, Group and Co (accountant) $ 4,435.36 9—Travel expenses, accommodation and meals $ 3,133.06 10—Lease with Wilfred Légaré Inc $ 665.00 TOTAL $100.819.90 On September 22, 1969 Mr Dumas received a letter from Mr Gauv- reau telling him that Eaton’s was not interested in locating in Quebec City; he further learned that Simpsons-Sears was moving into the Laurier Project. ...

In his income tax return, the appellant stated he had been separated from his wife for 38 weeks and had had hired help for 19 weeks. 3.05 During the years in question, the following expenses were claimed by the appellant and disallowed in whole or in part by the respondent as indicated: 1976 1977 1977 1978 1978 Legal expenses claimed nil $ 805.00 $ 500.00 allowed nil nil Child care expenses claimed $3,274.77 $2,355.91 $3,422.07 allowed nil $ 570.00 $1,000.00 4. ... In the present case, as there is only one child, the final product is therefore $840 (28 * 30 * 1). The respondent, in computing the exemption, took only 19 weeks into account, or the number for which the appellant stated he had hired help (para 3.04), and thus allowed only $570 (19 * 30 * 1). ...