Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

Gibson of the Tax litigation section of the Department of Justice as follows: Bank of Montreal June 26-74 $ 7,150.29 Bank of Montreal June 25-75 4,971.01 Niagara Finance June 28-71 1,092.81 Third mortgage July 20-77 8,400.00 Royal Trust July 26-74 10,089.00 Bank of Montreal June 14-74 9,978.59 $41,681.70 In filing his income tax return for the taxation year 1979 the appellant claimed as a deduction in computing his income an allowable business investment loss in the amount of $21,305.88. ...

In construing a penal section there is the unimpeachable authority of Lord Esher in Tuck & Sons v. ...

Law — Analysis 4.01 Law The main provisions of the Income Tax Act involved in this case are subsection 2(1) and paragraphs 3(a), 12(1)(j), 82(1)(a), (b), 122.2(1)(a), (2)(b). ...

Giffen and Craddock from the farm were as follows: 1979 (4 months) $ 3,863 1980 11,295 1981 14,999 1982 14,998 1983 14,999 1984 4,938 Messrs. ...

The said Exhibits read as follows: GORDON WRIGHT SCHEDULE 1 EARNINGS AS A COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN 1976 16,866 1977 16,649 1978 40,058 1979 36,888 1980 7,406 1981 26,824 1982 19,604 1983 15,751 180,046 GORDON WRIGHT SCHEDULE 2 EARNINGS FROM ROE HERRING FISHERY 1976 7,577 1977 6,223 1978 10,406 1979 22,748 1980 strike 1981 did not participate — gambling 1982 4,538 1983 14,202 65,694 It may be seen, with respect to roe herring fishing, there was a strike in 1980, no income in 1981, and a small income in 1982. ...

The evidence showed that the farming business was, for the most part, dependent on the renting out of four saddle horses — usually a seasonal activity, the sale of maple sugar products, the sale of wood in 20 years’ time, the sale of honey, the sale of a small amount of livestock for butchering. ...

Appeal allowed. 1 *Vide P St J Langan, Maxwell on The Interpretations of Statutes, 12th ed (1969), (Sweet & Maxwell, London), p 28. ...

In Kerr & Forbes v MNR, [1984] CTC 2071; 84 DTC 1094, this is said at 2078 (DTC 1100): While it is not impossible for a person to fall within the first class even if he has other employment which is usually regarded as “full-time” it would, in my view, require a truly unusual set of facts of the kind described in Graham v The Queen, (supra), to arrive at that result. ...

In those cases the same issue that emerges on this appeal was before the Exchequer Court and the Federal Court — Trial Division, respectively. ...

In the Federal Court — Trial Division decision in The Queen v Dr Beverley A Burgess, [1981] CTC 258; 81 DTC 5192, cited by the respondent in the instant appeal, Mr Justice Cattanach at 261 (DTC 5194) stated the following: The question is, as I view it, whether the legal expenses paid by the defendant were expended by her for the purpose of obtaining income which was hers as of right. ...