Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

It provides: 118 (1) For the purpose of computing the tax payable under this Part by an individual for a taxation year, there may be deducted an amount determined by the formula A X B where A is the appropriate percentage for the year, and B is the total of (b) Wholly dependent person — in the case of an individual not entitled to a deduction by reason of paragraph (a) who, at any time in the year, (i) is an unmarried person or a married person who neither supported nor lived with the married person’s spouse and is not supported by the spouse, and (ii) whether alone or jointly with one or more other persons, maintains a self-contained domestic establishment (in which the individual lives) and actually supports in that establishment a person who, at that time, is (A) except in the case of a child of the individual, resident in Canada, (B) wholly dependent for support on the individual, or the individual and the other person or persons, as the case may be, (C) related to the individual, and (D) except in the case of a parent or grandparent of the individual, either under 18 years of age or so dependent by reason of mental or physical infirmity: an amount equal to the total of (iii) $6,000, and (iv) an amount determined by the formula $5,000- (D- $500) where D is the greater of $500 and the income for the year of the dependent person. ...

The Respondent’s Position (L4/R3468/T0/BT0) test_marked_paragraph_end (1926) 1.023 0935_4039_4207 The Minister relies on the assumption of fact that in the 1994 and 1995 taxation years, the Appellant was not suffering from a severe or prolonged mental or physical impairment the effects of which were such that the Appellant’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living, within the meaning provided by section 118.4 of the Income Tax Act (the ^Acf ’) was markedly restricted. ...

Appeal allowed. 1 ’ [1948] S.C.R. 486, 3 D.T.C. 1182, [1948] C.T.C. 195 (S.C.C.). ...

In computing his income for the 1995 taxation year, the Appellant reported income from employment as follows: T4 Supplementary employment income $54,182.39 Less: “Out of court settlement” $ 4,794.00 Income from employment $49,388.39 By Notice of Reassessment dated August 22, 1997, the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) reassessed the Appellant’s income tax return for the 1995 taxation year disallowing the reduction from employment income in the amount of $4,794.00 thereby increasing his income from employment from $49,388.39 to $54,182.39. ...

Appeal dismissed. 1 * Blais c. Ministre du Revenu national (1989), 90 D.T.C. 1494 (T.C.C.) at 1501-2; Canadian Oxford Dictionary, p. 1068. 2 Frank Bennett, Creditors' and Debtors’ Rights and Remedies, 4th ed. pp. 19-20, Scarbor ough: Carswell. 3 Stacey Lumber Co. v. ...

From what both counsel stated to the Court, Respondent’s counsel was in constant communication with Appellants counsel and was quite aware of the usage of solicitors time and the turmoil that these motions, various alleged bases (which changed from time to time and not all of which were followed through), and the number of documents involved were creating — all at great expense to the Appellants. ...

Samson merely stated the following diagnosis: [TRANSLATION] “Severe diabetic retinopathy with macular edema and hemorrhaging of vitreous body, Dec. 31/10/90 to 13/11/92 [sic] — Patient's ability to perform a basic activity of daily living markedly restricted.” ...

The problem is that an earlier assessment of tax in an amount which both the Minister and the Appellant agreed was too low resulted in a refund which was seized under the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act (“ FOAEA ”).The Appellant says that the assessment which gave rise to the refund should not have been made for it was based on an error which the Appellant drew to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue before the assessment was issued. 2 The Appellant retained A to Z Accounting Services of Cornwall, Ontario to prepare his 1995 return of income. ...

It states: (3) Definition of “moving expenses” — In subsection (1), “moving expenses” includes any expense incurred as or on account of (a) travel costs (including a reasonable amount expended for meals and lodging), in the course of moving the taxpayer and members of the taxpayer's household from the old residence to the new residence, (b) the cost to the taxpayer of transporting or storing household effects in the course of moving from the old residence to the new residence, (c) the cost to the taxpayer of meals and lodging near the old residence or the new residence for the taxpayer and members of the taxpayer's household for a period not exceeding 15 days, (d) the cost to the taxpayer of cancelling the lease by virtue of which the taxpayer was the lessee of the old residence, (e) the taxpayer's selling costs in respect of the sale of the old residence, and (f) where the old residence is being or has been sold by the taxpayer or the taxpayer's spouse as a result of the move, the cost to the taxpayer of legal services in respect of the purchase of the new residence and of any taxes (other than the goods and services tax) imposed on the transfer or registration of title to the new residence, but, for greater certainty, does not include costs (other than costs referred to in paragraph (f) incurred by the taxpayer in respect of the acquisition of the new residence. ...

.: — The appeal of Audrey Wilson was heard on the 27th of September 1995 in the City of Vancouver, and the issue is whether she is allowed to claim a disability deduction in her 1992-93 taxation years. ...