Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致
Results 491 - 500 of 13525 for 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致
TCC
Tuck v. The Queen, 2012 TCC 332 (Informal Procedure)
Each party shall bear their own costs. Signed at Toronto, Ontario this 20th day of September 2012. ... Woods” Woods J. Citation: 2012 TCC 332 Date: 20120920 Docket: 2011-2489(IT)I BETWEEN: YVONNE TUCK, Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent. ... Kirvan Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario ...
TCC
Dufour v. The Queen, docket 2000-1784-IT-I (Informal Procedure)
Reasons f or Judgment Watson, D.J.T.C.C. [1] This appeal was heard under the informal procedure at Montréal, Quebec, on May 4, 2001. [2] In computing his income for the 1995, 1996 and 1997 taxation years, the appellant claimed the amounts of $9,508, $6,390 and $4,075 respectively as losses from carrying on a business. [3] By Notices of Reassessment dated January 18, 1999, the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") disallowed the amounts of $9,508 and $6,390 previously allowed for the 1995 and 1996 taxation years. [4] By Notice of Assessment dated March 18, 1999, the Minister disallowed the amount of $4,075 claimed in respect of the 1997 taxation year. [5] On January 28, 2000, the Minister confirmed the Notices of Reassessment and Assessment dated January 18 and March 18, 1999. [6] In making and confirming the reassessments, the Minister made the following assumptions of fact in particular: [TRANSLATION] (a) the appellant has made a career in the Public Service of Canada as a director of various departments within Employment and Immigration Canada in Quebec; (b) the appellant was also a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for one year; (c) during the years in issue, the appellant allegedly operated a business the activities of which were as follows: (i) finding financing and/or taking part in the development of projects in the West Indies, the Caribbean and Africa; (ii) acting as an intermediary in transactions relating to the import and export of various goods; (iii) selling land in the Dominican Republic; (d) the appellant operated his alleged business under the firm name "Info-Caraïbes, Import- Export"; (e) the appellant established no action plan for that alleged business; (f) the appellant has very little training in the operations of the alleged business; (g) since the start of the alleged business in 1990, the appellant has only incurred losses; (h) since the start of the alleged business, the appellant has invested only $1,413; (i) there has been no growth in the gross income of the alleged business since 1990; gross income has not changed and remains at zero; (j) the appellant has devoted very little time to his alleged business; (k) the appellant had no reasonable expectation of earning a profit in carrying on his alleged business; (l) in an initial audit, the Minister gave the appellant the benefit of the doubt with respect to a reasonable expectation of earning a profit in carrying on the business for the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years; (m) the losses claimed in respect of his alleged business constituted personal expenses for the years in issue; (n) in the alternative, if the Court were to conclude that a business was carried on by the appellant, the audit of the expenses claimed by the appellant during the 1995 and 1996 taxation years yielded the following results: (i) the legal fees claimed in 1995 and 1996 were disallowed because they were incurred to defend the appellant's reputation; (ii) the notarial fees claimed in 1995 were disallowed because they were not connected to the appellant's business; (iii) based on his audit, the Minister revised the business losses for the 1995 and 1996 taxation years and changed them to $1,207 and $1,200 respectively (see Appendices 1 and 2). [7] At the hearing, the agent for the appellant admitted the facts alleged in subparagraphs (a), (b) and (l) and denied those alleged in the other subparagraphs of paragraph 14 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal. [8] The burden of proof is on the appellant. ... Each case stands on its own merits. [9] Extensive case law has addressed the meaning of the expression "reasonable expectation of profit", including the decisions mentioned below. [10] In Moldowan v. ... Sophie Debbané, Revisor APPENDIX 1 1995 Re: Info-Caraïbes Import-Export Claimed Allowed Disallowed Expenses: Rent: 25% of the following expenses: $1,823.36 $ 614.23 $1,209.13 Snow removal 1 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Loan principal and interest 2 $5,244.00 $ 0.00 $5,244.00 Municipal taxes 3 $ 928.70 $ 928.70 $ 0.00 School taxes 4 $ 241.32 $ 241.32 $ 0.00 Heating 5 $ 496.43 $ 496.43 $ 0.00 Electricity 6 $ 0.00 $ 407.46 $ (407.46) Insurance 7 $ 383.00 $ 383.00 $ 0.00 $7,293.45 $2,456.91 $4,836.54 Professional fees: Legal 8 $3,193.60 $ 0.00 $3,193.60 Notarial 9 $3,745.34 $ 0.00 $3,745.34 Accounting 10 $1,139.55 $ 500.00 $ 639.55 $8,078.49 $ 500.00 $7,578.49 Representation: Telecommunications- 90% business 11 $1,001.18 $ 278.11 $ 723.07 Office supplies 12 $ 131.05 $ 131.05 $ 0.00 Associations and dues 13 $ 207.60 $ 207.60 $ 0.00 CCA on equipment 14 $ 90.00 $ 90.00 $ 0.00 $1,429.83 $ 706.76 $ 723.07 Automobile- 50% for business purposes: CCA Insurance Registration Maintenance and repairs Gas and oil Parking Business loss $11,331.68 $1,820.99 $9,510.69 Less: rental expenses (home office) $ 1,823.36 $ 614.23 $1,209.13 Business loss reduced by rental expenses $ 9,508.32 $1,206.76 $8,301.56 APPENDIX 2 1996 Re: Info-Caraïbes Import-Export Claimed Allowed Disallowed Expenses: Rent: 25% of the following expenses: $3,280.64 $ 867.83 $2,412.82 Snow removal 1 $ 250.00 $ 0.00 $ 250.00 Loan principal and interest 2 $ 9,401.27 $ 0.00 $9,401.27 Municipal taxes 3 $ 1,248.80 $1,248.80 $ 0.00 School taxes 4 $ 386.42 $ 386.42 $ 0.00 Heating 5 $ 967.29 $ 967.29 $ 0.00 Electricity 6 $ 455.68 $ 455.68 $ 0.00 Insurance 7 $ 413.11 $ 413.11 $ 0.00 $13,122.57 $3,471.30 $9,651.27 Professional fees: Legal 8 $2,850.00 $ 0.00 $2,850.00 Notarial 9 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Accounting 10 $ 600.00 $ 0.00 $ 600.00 $3,450.00 $ 0.00 $3,450.00 Representation: 11 $ 300.00 $ 0.00 $ 300.00 Telecommunications- 90% business 12 $ 997.90 $ 277.20 $ 720.70 Office supplies 13 $ 73.16 $ 73.16 $ 0.00 Associations and dues 14 $ 79.61 $ 79.61 $ 0.00 CCA on equipment 15 $ 72.00 $ 72.00 $ 0.00 $ 1,522.67 $ 501.97 $ 1,020.70 Automobile- 50% for business purposes: $1,417.93 $ 698.46 $ 719.47 CCA 16 $1,242.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 42.00 Insurance 17 $ 397.95 $ 397.95 $ 0.00 Registration 18 $ 224.00 $ 224.00 $ 0.00 Maintenance and repairs 19 $ 371.90 $ 371.90 $ 0.00 Gas and oil 20 $ 550.00 $ 550.00 $ 0.00 Parking 21 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 0.00 $2,835.85 $ 2,793.85 $ 42.00 Business loss $9,671.24 $ 2,068.26 $7,602.98 Less: rental expenses (home office) $3,280.64 $ 867.83 $2,412.82 Business loss reduced by rental expenses $6,390.60 $ 1,200.43 $5,190.17 [OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION] 2000-1784(IT)I BETWEEN: JEAN-CLAUDE DUFOUR, Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent. ...
TCC
Doering v. M.N.R., 2003 TCC 100
Signed at Toronto, Canada, this 12th day of March 2003 "D.W. Beaubier" J.T.C.C. ... [9] The appeals are dismissed. Signed at Toronto, Canada, this 12th day of March 2003. ... Doering Firm: For the Respondent: Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada ...
TCC
Gallo v. The Queen, docket 2002-894(IT)I (Informal Procedure)
A. FACTS [1] Jovic Plastifacture Inc. ("Jovic") was incorporated under the laws of the Province of British Columbia on the 25th day of March 1988. [2] Jovic was incorporated for the purpose of developing and marketing a bicycle stop light sensor powered by a computer device. [3] Funds were raised by Jovic to develop and market the stoplight. [4] On the 6th day of March 1990 the shares of Jovic were owned as follows: Joseph Gallo, Jr. 233,890 Joseph Gallo, Sr. 219,280 Victoria Gallo (the Appellant) 32,000 [5] Jovic was unable to obtain any further funds and it has been inactive since 1994. [6] When the Appellant filed her income tax return for the 1998 taxation year she deducted carrying charges in the amount of $3,977.00. [7] When the Appellant filed her income tax return for the 1999 taxation year the Appellant claimed an allowable business investment loss ("ABIL") of $8,812.50 calculated on the following basis: 32,000 shares at $0.25 = $ 8,000.00 375,000 shares at $0.01 = $ 3,750.00 $11,750.00 75% thereof $ 8,812.50 [8] By Notices of Reassessment issued on the 14th day of June 2001 the Minister reassessed the Appellant's 1998 and 1999 taxation years. ... $ 8,922.00 B. ... The ABIL should be calculated as follows: 32,000 shares at $0.25 = $ 8,000.00 Un-repaid loans October 8, 1991 $2,400.00 May 6, 1991 $2,390.00 March 8, 1994 $3,000.00 $7,790.00 $ 7,790.00 $15,790.00 75% $11,842.50 [15] The Minister is instructed to allow the Appellant to claim an ABIL in the amount of $11,842.50 in determining her income for the 1999 taxation year. ...
TCC
Laplante v. The Queen, 2008 DTC 4822, 2008 TCC 335 (Informal Procedure)
The Queen, 2008 DTC 4822, 2008 TCC 335 (Informal Procedure) Docket: 2007-4004(IT)I BETWEEN: GHISLAIN LAPLANTE, Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent. ... Susan Deichert, Reviser Citation: 2008TCC335 Date: 20080616 Docket: 2007-4004(IT)I BETWEEN: GHISLAIN LAPLANTE, Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent. ... [16] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 16th day of June 2008. ...
TCC
Asadollah v. The Queen, 2007 TCC 333 (Informal Procedure)
Rossiter" Rossiter, J. Citation: 2007TCC333 Date: 20070808 Docket: 2006-1673(GST)I BETWEEN: RAMIN ASADOLLAH, Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent. ... ANALYSIS [9] Asadollah makes three alternative arguments: 1. ... Rossiter DATE OF JUDGMENT: August 8, 2007 APPEARANCES: Agent for the Appellant Carl Beck, CMA Counsel for the Respondent: David Everett COUNSEL OF RECORD: For the Appellant: Name: Firm: For the Respondent: John H. ...
TCC
Norton v. The Queen, 2010 DTC 1068 [at at 2863], 2010 TCC 62 (Informal Procedure)
[4] The following table lists the amounts that the Respondent has agreed to allow as a deduction in computing the income of the partnership: Paragraph in the Reply: Description: Amount Allowed: 2001 2002 2003 2004 9(h) Crew shares $1,570.63 9(j) Boat Fuel $442.06 9(k) Line $674.28 9(k) Rope $754.11 9(l) Line $440.54 9(m) Line $523.65 9(m) Rope $1,133.80 9(m) Bait bags $265.00 9(o) Line $928.40 9(o) Rope $702.00 9(y)(i) Lamp etc ... $65.98 9(y)(iii) Line $325.15 9(hh)(i) Insurance $535.50 9(oo)(ii) Line $284.85 9(pp)(iii) Line $679.14 9(tt) Outboard motor $408.46 9(ggg)(iii) Property taxes $493.42 9(ggg)(iii) Barbeque $69.99 9(iii) Property taxes $471.12 9(kkk) Property taxes $519.74 9(kkk) Hunting ammo, fan $230.53 9(kkk) Hotel in Yarmouth $139.32 9(lll) Meal $16.35 9(lll) Cape Cod Colony Motel $50.00 9(lll) Property taxes $131.30 9(lll) Credit Notes $60.00 Total: $2,433.86 $1,587.64 $6,005.77 $1,888.05 [5] The Respondent also agreed that the $215.04 spent by the Appellants to acquire a police scanner in 2002 should be added to the undepreciated capital cost of the Class 8 assets of the partnership ... Q. You held on to the ‑‑‑ A. The 2000 ‑‑‑ Q. ‑‑‑ 2000. ...
TCC
Picard v. The Queen, 2008 TCC 506
The Queen, 2008 TCC 506 Docket: 2006-1070(IT)G BETWEEN: GUY PICARD, Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent. ... Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 7th day of October 2008. "Paul Bédard" Bédard J. ... Erich Klein, Revisor Citation: 2008 TCC 506 Date: 20081007 Docket: 2006-1070(IT)G BETWEEN: GUY PICARD, Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent. ...
TCC
SNC Technologies Inc. (Formerly Les Technologies Industrielles SNC Inc.) v. The Queen, 2008 TCC 461
The Queen, 2008 TCC 461 Docket: 2004-3710(IT)G BETWEEN: SNC TECHNOLOGIES INC. ... Signed at Montreal, Quebec, this 21st day of August 2008. “Gaston Jorré” Jorré J. ... Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 15th day of August 2008. “Gaston Jorré” Jorré J. ...
TCC
9075-5067 Québec Inc. c. La Reine, 2004 TCC 692
La Reine, 2004 TCC 692 Docket: 2001-2889(IT)G BETWEEN: 9075-5067 QUÉBEC INC., Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent. ... Brian McCordick, Translator Citation: 2004 TCC 692 Date: 20041014 Docket: 2001-2889(IT)G BETWEEN: 9075-5067 QUÉBEC INC., Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent. [OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION] REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Garon C.J. ...