Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

The notice of assessment in respect of the worker, which was dated August 27, 1997, involved the following amounts: Employment insurance: $2,761.20 Penalty:        $226.12 Interest:        $131.71... 6. ...

Roberge from Mutuelle-Vie des Fonctionnaires du Québec. [3] The respondent is basically relying on subparagraph 56(1)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act ("the Act "), which provides for the inclusion in computing income of "any amount received by the taxpayer in the year as, on account or in lieu of payment of, or in satisfaction of, a superannuation or pension benefit including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing," certain pensions, benefits and payments that are specifically listed. [4] In a separation agreement and corollary relief settlement that was signed on March 26 and 28, 1992, and confirmed by a divorce judgment rendered on October 21, 1992, the appellant and Guy Roberge made certain financial arrangements, which are found, inter alia, in articles 2-6 and 15-17. ... Note must also be made of the expression "in satisfaction of ". ...

In summary the Minister has taken the position that the elected position of Vice–President of MMF is one and the same as the Regional Administrator in a particular region and thus is not insurable employment under the Unemployment Insurance Act (the " Act "), which was in effect at the times in question. [4] The position of the Appellant is that these two positions were not one and the same and that his respective appointments as Manager of WMA and Regional Manager of the Winnipeg region of MMF, were separate and apart from his election as Regional Vice–President of MMF for the Winnipeg region. [5] The legal issues are quite clear and I believe there is common ground between the parties that election to an office does not, generally speaking, constitute employment under the Act, and further that election to the positions in question would not be covered by the Act or the regulations made thereunder. ...

Corriveau was having serious financial problems, he loaned him — through advances ranging from $50 to $1,000 — a total of $10,000 in 1988 and 1989 and $6,000 in 1990. ...

By Notice of Assessment dated November 20, 1997 (the "Assessment"), the Respondent assessed the Appellant with respect to, inter alia, employment insurance premiums (the "Premiums") in the amount of $13,788.93, payable by the Appellant pursuant to the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23 (the " EI Act ") in connection with the services performed for the Appellant during the 1997 taxation year by the individuals listed in the attached Schedule A [as corrected at the hearing] in respect of whose remuneration the Appellant failed to make remittances to the Receiver General for Canada, (the "Receiver General") as required. 3. ...

Copies of the vendor's statement of adjustments and orders to pay for both properties are attached to these submissions. [14] I agree with the general proposition that the law does not compel a person to do that which is impossible — lex non cogit ad impossibilia. [15] Nonetheless, the fact is that Essex through its lawyers collected the GST from the purchaser. Subsection 222(1) reads: 222.(1) — Subject to subsection (1.1), where a person collects an amount as or on account of tax under Division II, the person shall, for all purposes, be deemed to hold the amount in trust for Her Majesty until it is remitted to the Receiver General or withdrawn under subsection (2). [16] The result was that the moment the purchase price was paid by the purchaser, the portion of the payment that represented GST was impressed with a trust in favour of Her Majesty. ...

It is an appeal from income tax assessments for the 1993, 1994 and 1995 taxation years. [2] By notices of reassessment dated December 23, 1996 for the appellant's 1993, 1994 and 1995 taxation years, the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") added the following amounts to the appellant's income: [TRANSLATION] 1993 1994 1995 Professional fees $6,632 $2,699 Disallowed farm losses $2,768 $3,745 $2,840 Disallowed expenses home office $2,921 $4,229 $3,978 advertising $ 514 $ 520 $2,047 meals $4,236 automobile $4,506 $4,075 $8,209 c.c.a. automobile $2,158 $1,440 $1,353 [3] The point for determination is whether the income amounts of $6,632 and $2,699 for the 1993 and 1994 taxation years were included in the appellant's income for those years. [4] Following a discussion between the parties at the hearing of this appeal, counsel for the respondent admitted that the amounts of $6,632 and $2,699 should not be added for the 1993 and 1994 taxation years respectively. [5] The Minister disallowed the amounts of $2,768, $3,745 and $2,840 for the 1993, 1994 and 1995 taxation years respectively. [6] The appellant, a lawyer by profession, has a law office in New Richmond, Quebec, approximately one and a half kilometers from his residence. ...

Hayes and Her Majesty the Queen, on October 14, 1998 under docket # 97-3080(IT)I. ... He asked the questions – Were the essentials in place here? Were the preliminary steps in place? ...

They had two girls – the Appellant, born in 1958 and her sister, born in 1968. ... She returned to Toronto and lived with her father and worked for him for the summers of 1976 – 1979. ...

In making the reassessments for the years in issue, the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") made in particular the following assumptions of fact: [TRANSLATION] (a) the appellant reported no business income for the 1993 taxation year; (b) the appellant reported the following business income for the 1994 and 1995 taxation years: Taxation year Gross income Net income 1994 $10,000 $ 9,031 1995 $35,085 $21,185 (c) the appellant had a horse-selling business during the years in issue; (d) the appellant kept no books for his business; (e) the Minister audited the appellant's affairs using the net worth method; (f) the amount of unreported income was determined using the net worth method (a copy of the appellant's statement of net worth... as schedules 1, 2, 3 and 4); (g) the amounts not reported by the appellant which were subject to the federal penalty for negligence are as follows: Taxation Amounts subject year to penalty 1993 $ 6,745.99 1994 $16,540.07 1995 $23,100.97 (h) by thus failing to report his income, the appellant knowingly, or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence, made or participated in, assented to or acquiesced in the making of, a false statement or omission in the returns of income filed for the 1993, 1994 and 1995 taxation years, as a result of which the tax which he would have been required to pay based on the information provided in the returns of income filed for those years was less than the amount of tax actually payable for those years; (i) as a result of the appellant's failure to report all his income, the Minister assessed the following penalties in accordance with subsection 163(2) of the Act for the 1993, 1994 and 1995 taxation years: Taxation Penalty year assessed 1993 $1,586.32 1994 $2,503.00 1995 $3,892.74 [2] The points at issue are clearly stated in paragraph 8 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, as follows: [TRANSLATION] (a) to determine whether the appellant correctly reported all his income for the 1993, 1994 and 1995 taxation years; (b) to determine whether the Minister was correct in assessing a penalty against the appellant under subsection 163(2) of the Act for the 1993, 1994 and 1995 taxation years. [3] The appellant testified in support of his appeal and also called one Pierre Paquette and his accountant, Mr. ...