Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

.: — The primary issue in these appeals from income tax assessments for 1986 and 1987 taxation years is whether the Minister of National Revenue (“Minister{H3}”) properly included the non-taxable portion of capital gains from purported dispositions by Holm Hallbauer (“appellant”) of interests in two properties in computing his adjusted taxable income for each of 1986 and 1987, as defined by paragraph 127.52(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act (“Act”), for the purpose of calculating his alternative minimum tax for each year: sections 127.5 and 127.51. [1] To determine the issue for 1986 I must decide if the transfers of interests by the appellant in a property situated in Edmonton, Alberta, referred to as the “Liberty Building”, were dispositions within the meaning of section 54 of the Act or if the transfers were merely security arrangements in respect of the appellant’s indebtedness to two creditors. ... The words in section 79, “... has acquired or reacquired the beneficial ownership of property”, whether capital property or inventory, “in consequence of the debtor’s failure to pay all or any part of an amount...” are significant, counsel said. ... Linden, J.A. considered the words “Where a person... receives a loan,... because or or as a consequence of … a... office or employment...” in subsection 80.4(1) of the Act in A.G. of Hoefele v. ...

.: — The appellant, Lorenz, appeals from an assessment of income tax with respect to the 1989 taxation year. ... Thill & Associates Inc., is prepared to arrange defence, pay legal fees and other costs in order to bring a test case to court on behalf of you and the rest of our clients”. ... She did not recall signing a promissory note and has no idea why she would have signed a document entitled Undertaking & Acknowledgement issued under subsection 123(3) of the Securities Regulation made pursuant to the Securities Act of British Columbia when she did not read any of the documents pertaining to her investment in Enjoy magazine other than the opening paragraph in each one and, perhaps, other “bits and pieces”. ...

Carignan said that the total amounts shown on the receipts were as follows: Taxation year Receipts 1988 $ 100,000 1989 $ 250,000 1990 $ 500,000 1991 $1,000,000 Mr. ... Lagueux & Frères Inc. (1974), 74 D.T.C. 6569 (Fed. T.D.), in which it was held that to determine the tax consequences of a transaction, the nature of the transaction must be determined under the civil law. ... As was clearly established in Lagueux & Frères, supra, the first thing that must be done is to determine the nature of the transactions entered into by the appellants with Univers du Rail Inc. and the Fondation Amérindienne Tecumseh in light of the Civil Code of Lower Canada. ...

He said that the loss did occur and that it was an allowable business investment loss within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5 th Supp.) as amended (the " Act "). ... This was divided 50 – 50 between the Allens because both were shareholders and the money came from both of them. ... There was $306,094.00 claimable as an ABIL which was split 50 – 50 between the Appellants. ...

Dyson $1,161,000 Fair Market Value of Radio & Television operations $4,548,004 Plus: Redundant Assets 825,000 En Bloc Value of Shares $5,373,004 — 40,000 Value of One Share $ 134.33 Right to Reserve As a result of the value determined by me, a capital gain will result. ... & M. Wood Products Ltd., et al. v. M.N.R., [1972] C.T.C. 556; 72 D.T.C. 6483 Mr. ...

.: — The appeal of Taran Furs (Montreal) Inc. was heard on October 17, 1995 in the City of Montreal, province of Quebec, and the issue is whether the Respondent was right in assessing the Appellant for non-resident tax and penalty with respect to the taxation years 1975, 1976 and 1977 and for non-resident tax with respect to the years 1980 and 1981 respectively. ... In assessing the Appellant for the 1975, 1976, 1977, 1980 and 1981 years, the Minister of National Revenue relied inter alia on the following assumptions of facts: (a) The Appellant carried on the business of manufacturing and selling furs in Canada; (b) In the course of this business carried on in Canada, the Appellant bought skins from non-resident suppliers, Finnish Fur Sales Ltd and Danish Fur Sales Ltd, who carried on their own business in Finland and Denmark respectively, and Hudson Bay Company in New York (USA), Nordic Fur Auctions in Stockholm (Sweden), Oslo Fur Auctions Ltd in Oslo (Norway) and Hudson Bay & Anning Ltd in London (England) who carried on their own business in the country mentioned in parenthesis; (c) Finnish Fur Sales Ltd and Danish Fur Sales Ltd had no permanent establishment in Canada during 1975, 1976, 1977, 1980 and 1981; (d) The Appellant did not carry on any business in a country other than Canada and the mere purchase of goods outside Canada does not amount to carrying on a business in a foreign country; (e) Payments of interest on late payments to the suppliers were provided in the contracts passed on by the Appellant with its non-resident suppliers; (f) During the 1975, 1976, 1977, 1980 and 1981 years, the Appellant paid or credited on late payments to its non- resident suppliers the amounts mentioned in the annex attached to this Reply, on account or in lieu of payment of, or in satisfaction of interest to its non-resident suppliers; (g) In computing these amounts so paid to its non-resident suppliers, the Appellant applied a rate of interest to its overdue payments which were outstanding after a certain length of time; (h) The interest paid by the Appellant represents interest derived from a source within Canada by the non-resident suppliers; (i) The Appellant failed to deduct or withhold tax from the amounts of interest paid to its non-resident suppliers; (j) The Appellant is liable to pay the following amounts of tax that should have been deducted or withheld: YEAR: TAX 1975: $29,913.27 1976: $20,100.72 1977: $7,120.96 1980: $ 5,844.00 1981: $2,172.00; (k) In consequence thereof, the Minister of National Revenue also assessed penalty provided by section 227(8) as follows: YEAR: TAX 1975: $2,991.32 1976: $2,010.17 1977: $712.10 At the hearing, the Appellant admits sub-paragraphs Sa) to 5c), 5e) to 5g), except for the meaning of interest and denies all the other subparagraphs. ... Smidth & Co. v. Greenwood, (1922) 8 T.C. 193 (House of Lords), cited in Cutlers Guild Ltd. above. ...

McLachlan’s law firm, McLachlan & Rissman, dealt on behalf of the RMM group with Mr. ... Richard Lipton of the Chicago law firm Sonnen- schein, Carlin, Nath & Rosenthal that provided initial tax advice to the RMM Group. ... The French version reads: Il est entendu que l’opération dont il est raisonnable de considérer qu’elle n’entraîne pas, directement ou indirectement, d’abus dans l’application des dispositions de la présente loi lue dans son ensemble — compte non tenu du présent article — n’est pas visée par le paragraphe (2). ...

Prior to, and at all times material to this appeal, he established a " permanent establishment” in Canada, as defined in the Canada- United States tax conventions of 1942 and 1980. ... The document prepared by her, entitled "Allocation of Treatment & Administration Time Between Canada & The United States" was filed as Exhibit A-12. ... By adopting the method already described, he taxed a percentage of the appellant's “ manufacturing profit,” all of which was earned outside Saskatchewan. ...

In Front & Simcoe Limited v. M.N.R., [1960] C.T.C. 123; 60 D.T.C. 1081, Cameron, J. said at page 132 (D.T.C. 1085): In Simon's Income Tax, Second Edition, Volume 1, page 50, the author, after referring to a number of decisions, states: The true principle, then is that the taxing Acts are to be applied in accordance with the legal rights of the parties to a transaction. ... They need not be repeated for the purposes of these reasons. 5 Presumably either deposit certificates or guaranteed investment certificates or perhaps both. 6 This indicates that affidavits were in use by the appellants at least as early as March 18, 1983. 7 This is taken verbatim from section 1 of the English Sale of Goods Act 1893, 56 & 57 Vict., c. 71. ...

The February 1994 Department of Finance Technical Note that accompanied the amending legislation states in part: New clause 37(8)(a)(ii)(B) contains the new alternative method for determining SR&ED expenditures. [...] If the taxpayer does elect the alternative method, the following expenditures will be considered to be for SR&ED carried on in Canada and therefore included in the taxpayer’s SR&ED pool under subsection 37(1): (1) an expenditure of a current nature (generally a lease expense) that was for and all or substantially all attributable to the use of premises, facilities or equipment for the prosecution of SR&ED in Canada, unless the expenditure was for general purpose office equipment or furniture. [...] ...