Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

The Appellant described in some detail the nature of the work performed by the ship. [3] JOIDES Resolution is part of the ocean drilling program operated by Texas A & M University in the USA. ...

The Appellant's skills and knowledge about the game of golf and his experience with the sport and equipment necessary, he felt, put him in a unique position to start a business of styling golf clubs to the needs of specific customers. [5] To retain his skills, the Appellant took a course at the Golfworks Teaching – Learning Center in Newark, Ohio, U.S.A. ...

Reasons for Judgment (Delivered Orally from the Bench at Calgary, Alberta on Tuesday, March 30, 1999) Margeson, J.T.C.C. [1] The matter before the Court at this time for decision is that of Royal Wayne Motel Ltd. and Her Majesty the Queen, # 98-704(IT)I. [2] It has been agreed that the only year in issue is the year 1993, the assessment for the year 1993. ...

His recollection was a little vague about what he charged his brother – between $700 and $800 a month. ...

(e) where the taxpayer's employer or a person related to the employer made an automobile available to the taxpayer, or to a person related to the taxpayer, in the year, the amount, if any, by which (i) an amount that is a reasonable standby charge for the automobile for the total number of days in the year during which it was made so available exceeds (ii) the total of all amounts, each of which is an amount (other than an expense related to the operation of the automobile) paid in the year to the employer or the person related to the employer by the taxpayer or the person related to the taxpayer for the use of the automobile; 6(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(e), a reasonable standby charge for an automobile for the total number of days (in this subsection referred to as the “total available days”) in a taxation year during which the automobile is made available to a taxpayer or to a person related to the taxpayer by the employer of the taxpayer or by a person related to the employer (both of whom are in this subsection referred to as the “employer”) shall be deemed to be the amount determined by the formula A/B x [2% x (C x D) + 2/3 x (E- F)] where A is the lesser of (a) the total number of kilometres that the automobile is driven (otherwise than in connection with or in the course of the taxpayer's office or employment) during the total available days, and (b) the value determined for B for the year under this subsection in respect of the standby charge for the automobile during the total available days, except that the amount determined under paragraph (a) shall be deemed to be equal to the amount determined under paragraph (b) unless (c) the taxpayer is required by the employer to use the automobile in connection with or in the course of the office or employment, and (d) all or substantially all of the distance travelled by the automobile in the total available days is in connection with or in the course of the office or employment; Analysis [8] The relevant provisions of the Act require an employee who enjoys a benefit as a result of the employer paying operating expenses to include it in income. ...

The initial efforts did not prove “ profitable” and the company through one of its directors was introduced to an individual from the United States who was prepared to develop and market the product of the company. ...

Secondly, the Court should decline to use its equitable jurisdiction to assist the applicant because her conduct amounted to"an end-run around securities statutes” and that she was now seeking equity with ” unclean hands”. ...

In the fall of 1984, he was approached by Equipment Planning Associates (which I shall refer to as " EPA") to see if he would be interested in changing employment and going to work for them in the same field as a management consultant specializing in developing their operations in western Canada. ...

.: — These are appeals heard in Toronto, Ontario, on December 13, 1995, against assessments of income tax for the years 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992 in which the Respondent disallowed claims for rental losses in the amounts of $11,454.60, $9,125.47, $8,260.87 and $12,850.00 respectively. ...

. — for each child or grandchild of the individual who, during the year, was wholly dependent upon him for support and was (i) under 21 years of age, (ii) 21 years of age or over and dependent by reason of mental or physical infirmity, or (iii) 21 years of age or over and in full-time attendance at a school or university, an amount equal to (iv) if the child or grandchild has not attained the age of 18 years before the end of the year, $710 less half of the amount, if any, by which the income for the year of the child or grandchild, as the case may be, exceeds $2,350, and (v) in any other case, $550 less the amount, if any, by which the income for the year of the child or grandchild, as the case may be, exceeds $1,150; The taxpayer was thus entitled to a maximum deduction of $710 if the child had an income not exceeding $2,540.! ...