Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

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. ...

Michaud and Hervey Michaud held insurable employment within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Act (“the Act ”) with Bois de chauffage J.R.H. ... (admitted, that is, did mechanical work — but paid for the saw) (o) The appellant and his father were listed on the payroll as being paid $500 a week for 40 hours of work, even though they often worked 50 to 60 hours a week. ...

(h) travel expenses – where the taxpayer, in the year, (i) was ordinarily required to carry on the duties of the office or employment away from the employer's place of business or in different places, and (ii) was required under the contract of employment to pay the travel expenses incurred by the taxpayer in the performance of the duties of the office or employment, amounts expended by the taxpayer in the year (other than motor vehicle expenses) for travelling in the course of the office or employment, except where the taxpayer (iii) received an allowance for travel expenses that was, because of subparagraph 6(1)(b)(v), (vi) or (vii), not included in computing the taxpayer's income for the year, or (iv) claims a deduction for the year under paragraph (e), (f) or (g); (emphasis added) [10] Paragraph 8(1)(h.1) states: (h.1) motor vehicle travel expenses – where the taxpayer, in the year, (i) was ordinarily required to carry on the duties of the office or employment away from the employer's place of business or in different places, and (ii) was required under the contract of employment to pay motor vehicle expenses incurred in the performance of the duties of the office or employment, amounts expended by the taxpayer in the year in respect of motor vehicle expenses incurred for travelling in the course of the office or employment, except where the taxpayer (iii) received an allowance for motor vehicle expenses that was, because of paragraph 6(1)(b), not included in computing the taxpayer's income for the year, or (iv) claims a deduction for the year under paragraph (f); [11] The leading case in this area is Ricketts v. ...

Reasons for Judgment Lamarre, J.T.C.C. [1] This is an appeal, filed under the informal procedure, from a determination of a loss made by the Minister of National Revenue ("Minister") under the Income Tax Act (" Act "), whereby the Minister determined to be nil the appellant's loss for the 1994 taxation year. ...

Reasons for Judgment MacLatchy, D.J.T.C.C. [1] This appeal was heard on July 21, 2000, at Toronto, Ontario. [2] Giulio Tersigni (the "Worker") appealed a ruling to the Respondent for the determination of the question of whether or not he was employed in insurable employment while engaged by the Appellant, for the period from January 14 to October 1, 1998, within the meaning of the Employment Insurance Act (the " Act "). [3] By letter dated September 22, 1999, the Respondent informed the Appellant and the Worker that it had been determined that the Worker's engagement with the Appellant during the period in question was insurable employment for the reason that the Worker was employed pursuant to a contract of service. [4] The parties agreed that the Appellant operated an automobile towing business and the Worker was hired to operate a tow truck to service the Appellant's clients (the "Clients") in the Windsor area. ...

Wherever premiums are referred to therein they shall be read as Canada Pension Plan contributions as the assumptions related to that appeal: "(a) the appellant is operating as a partnership; (b) the partners are Edward and Leanne Taylor, 50% each; (c) the partners are related as husband and wife; (d) the Appellant's business is electrical contracting – service, maintenance and installations; (e) Edward Taylor controlled the day-to-day operations and made the major business decision; (f) the Workers were hired to perform various types of electrical work; (g) some Workers were hired under a written agreement and others were hired under a verbal agreement; (h) the Workers performed their duties at various sites; (i) the Workers had to fill out a complete time sheet per the instructions given by the Appellant; (j) time sheets are to be submitted on Thursday evenings and cheques will be issued on the following Friday; (k) the Workers' hours of work were, in general, Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 4:00; (l) the Workers' rates of pay were between $8.00 to $28.00 per hour depending on the level of knowledge and difficulty of projects; (m) the Workers were paid by cheque on a weekly basis; (n) the Appellant and/or his licensed electricians supervised the Workers; (o) the Appellant maintained the right to terminate the Workers' services; (p) the Appellant provided all the materials and equipment required, at no cost to the Workers except the small tools which were provided by the Workers; (q) the Appellant was responsible for resolving customer complaints; (r) the Workers' duties were an integral part of the Appellant's business; (s) the Workers were employed by the Appellant pursuant to contracts of service; (t) the Appellant did not withhold unemployment/employment insurance premiums from the Workers' remuneration. ... The fact that the parties to the letter described their relationship as one of contractor – sub-contractor does not make it so. ...

Where the Minister’s assumptions have been "demolished" by the appellant, " the onus... shifts to the Minister to rebut the prima facie case " made out by the appellant and to prove the assumptions:... ...

Counsel also argued that the property was a MURB for which, until 1994, there was even an exception regarding the use of capital cost allowance to increase or create a rental loss under subsection 1100(14) of the Income Tax Regulations (the " Regulations "), and that the rental losses claimed were thus in accordance with the spirit of the Regulations. [15] Counsel for the respondent referred to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Moldowan v. ...