Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

Bowie" J.T.C.C. [1]               99 DTC 5799. ...

C. 11 in relation to the status of a child adopted under the laws of Ontario: (2) For all purposes of law, as of the date of the making of an adoption order, (a) the adopted child becomes the child of the adoptive parent and the adoptive parent becomes the parent of the adopted child; and (b) the adopted child ceases to be the child of the person who was his or her parent before the adoption order was made and that person ceases to be the parent of the adopted child, except where the person is the spouse of the adoptive parent, as if the adopted child had been born to the adoptive parent. [7] The evidence is sketchy but it would seem that the payments under the first paragraph of the above agreement were, within the meaning of paragraph 60.1(1)(b) of the Act “... for the benefit of...” ...

Reasons for Judgment Bowman, A.C.J. [1] This appeal is from an assessment under section 227.1 of the Income Tax Act against the appellant as a director and officer of Can-Am Windows & Doors Manufacturing Inc. ...

They include – (a) persons who pay the $50 without going to court, (b) persons who pay after going to court, (c) persons who are towed. ...

There was no acknowledgement of this letter by the Minister at any time, what we will call a ” letter of instruction”. ...

Clearly, this means that it is presumed that the taxpayer uses the automobile on average for 1,000 kilometres per month or 12,000 kilometres per year for personal purposes, or, as it states, (otherwise than in the performance of the duties of the taxpayer's office or employment)”, unless he “ establishes otherwise in prescribed form”. ...

(orally): — I think I’m in a position to render judgment. This is an appeal from reassessments for 1992 and 1993 of the Appellant, in which she was denied the disability tax credit provided under Section 118.3 of the Income Tax Act. ...

Touchie & Associates Ltd. were appointed Trustee’s of the estate of Douglas John Heavyside by the Official Receiver on October 28th, 1993, a copy of which is annexed hereto and marked as Schedule “C”. 4. ...

.: — This matter was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia on March 13, 1996 pursuant to the General Procedure of this Court. ...

In particular, the Minister took the following facts for granted in order to make this notice of child tax benefit: (a) the appellant lived with her de facto spouse, Charles Lasnier, during the 1992 taxation year; (b) the net incomes of each of the de facto spouses were reported in their income tax returns for the 1992 taxation year and were as follows: (i) appellant: $29,204 (ii) Charles Lasnier: $30,208 Total net income: $59,412 (c) taking into account that the total net income of the de facto spouses serves as the basis for calculating the child tax benefit, the Minister revised the said child tax benefit to a total sum of $194.45 for the year, that is to say for the months from July 1993 to June 1994, calculated in the following manner: Basic benefit for two children: $1,869 Less: Reduction of benefit Net family income: $59,412 Less: Basic amount: $25,921 Net family income exceeding basic amount: $33,491 Reduction of benefit 5% of last amount: $1,674.45 Revised benefit: $ 194.45 6. ...