Search - 枣庄市市中区 智博公考 地址 电话

Although there may exist some business advantages to be gained by their separate existence, there also exist some major fiscal advantages which, in my opinion, were seriously considered in making that arrangement. 19 In Annex B of Exhibit R-13, the following is recorded: Taxable Income 1967 1968 1969 1970 "WEE" $25,573.00 $19,461.00 $ 5,415.00 $33,992.00 "ABC" 24,439.00 35,874.00 28,457.00 25,353.00 "MONTREAL BABY"-- 4,607.00 16,962.00 21,167.00-------------------------------------------------- $50,012.00 $59,942.00 $50,834.00 $80,512.00 Additional Taxes Income taxable at 40% instead of 11% if subsection 138A(2) is applied on above income for 1967–68–69–70: 1967 $50,012.00 35,000.00---------- $15,012.00 @ 29% $ 4,353.00 1968 $59,942.00 35,874.00---------- $24,068.00 @ 29% 6,980.00 1969 $50,834.00 35,000.00---------- $15,834.00 @ 29% 4,592.00 1970 $80,512.00 55,159.00---------- $25,353.00 @ 29% 7,352.00---------- TOTAL TAXES INVOLVED $23,277.00 20 If subsection 138A(2) were applied and ABC Diaper Service Inc were to be associated with Wee Folks, the total tax payable would then be $23,277. ...

Minister of National Revenue, [1981] CTC 2400, 81 DTC 281 D E Taylor:—This is an appeal heard in Toronto, Ontario, on February 23, 1981, against an income tax assessment for the year 1976 in which the Minister of National Revenue disallowed an amount of $1,054.61 claimed by the taxpayer as “moving expenses’’, described by an appellant as: — non-capital carrying costs on unoccupied residence for sale $ 775.00 —extra cost due to equity being tied up in house as a result of moving 279.61 $1,054.61 For the purposes of the hearing the appellant revised his claim and provided additional detail: — existing carrying costs on house for sale (mortgage interest and property taxes) $ 832.12 — interest on loan necessitated by move from Kitchener to Hamilton (Note: This is not the regular mortgaging on either residence, $24,300.00 @ 12 /4% for 35 days) 279.61 Counsel informed the Board that the Minister was prepared, for purposes of the hearing, to accept the mathematical validity of the $832.12 rather than the $775 since the appellant stated the earlier amount had only been an estimate. ... The expenses claimed are: — not specifically excluded — not to make the former residents more saleable —not in respect of any loss on sale of former residence —not in respect of any capital expenditure on new residence, (in other words, they are costs related purely to moving) —reasonable, and all the requirements of section 62 are met. 2. ... (ii) With regard to IT-178R2 The expenses claimed are: — reasonable — not specifically excluded — not to make property more saleable — not in respect of any loss on sale —not in respect of any capital expenditure and otherwise all the requirements of section 62 are met (iii) If the cost of cancelling and unexpired lease on former residence is deductible (and it is)—excluding any rental payment for a period during which the residence was occupied (exactly my situation—I am claiming under (b), in lieu of rent, interest and property taxes while the house was unoccupied), why is my bridge financing, also due timing of move, not deductible? ...

Act — case law — analysis 5.01 A ct The chief sections of the Income Tax Act that apply in the case at bar are section 3, paragraph 8(1)(f), section 9, paragraph 18(1)(h) and section 67; these will be cited where necessary. 5.02 Case law The case law cited by the appellant is as follows: 1. ... Miron & Frères Ltée v MNR, [1955] CTC 182; 55 DTC 1109; and 3. RWS Johnston v MNR, [1948] CTC 195; 3 DTC 1182. 5.03. ... Nor can the Board ignore the formal notices — letters written to the appellant in 1970 and 1972 — concerning the supporting documents that were to be kept (paragraph 4.15). ...

Minister of National Revenue, [1972] CTC 2257, 72 DTC 1225 J O Weldon:—This appeal of the appellant Griffin Head Farms Limited (“Griffin”) initiated by Notice of Appeal dated April 2, 1971 with respect to its 1966 and 1968 taxation years, and those of Allied Vegetable Farms (Kingsville) Limited 71-238 (“Allied”), Edward Remark & Sons Limited 71-239 (“Edward Remark & Sons”) and Frank Remark & Son Limited 71-247 (“Frank Remark & Son”) initiated by Notices of Appeal all dated April 2, 1971 with respect to their 1966, 1967 and 1968 taxation years were heard together at Windsor, Ontario on September 22, 1971 under the Tax Appeal Board as it was then constituted. ... In the fall of 1964, Frank Remark and Edward Remark incorporated three more corporations: (a) Frank Remark and Son — to which corporation Griffin sold the Jasperson Farm accepting a promissory note as consideration; (b) Edward Remark & Sons — to which corporation Edward Remark and Frank Remark sold the farm property which they had Originally used in their partnership business Remark Orchards taking a promissory note as consideration therefor; (c) Allied — to which corporation Frank Remark and Edward Remark sold a number of greenhouses which they had originally used in their partnership business Remark Orchards accepting as consideration therefor a promissory note and the issued shares of Allied. 7. ... In that regard, Edward Remark testified as follows: Sometime before 1963 — I can’t recall exactly when, but my brother and I both agreed and approached Mr Riddell in Windsor. ...

His reported financial results from the activity were as follows: 1975 1976 Gross Revenues $13,791.50 $14,789.76 Expenses $ 8,996.70 $ 7,486.61 Net Profit $ 4,794.79 $ 7,303.15 It was common ground that the appellant was self-employed, was taxable on the profits from his business and was not subject to the restrictive provisions of the Income Tax Act which govern the computation of income from employment. ...

At the hearing, the appellant testified as follows: In 1964, he became a shareholder of Robertson, Malone & Co Limited by investing $10,000 therein. ... His salary was nominal but, at the end of each year, instead of keeping the money in the company, the profit was shared amongst the shareholders and every year the appellant paid substantial tax thereon as appears in Exhibit A-7, as follows: INCOME AND TAXES PAID FOR PERIOD 1964-1971 Salary/ Bonuses Commissions Other Total Income Taxes Paid Salary/ 1964 $- $18,873 $- $18,873 $ 5,438 1965 16,227 — 16,227 3,655 1966 — 14,564 220 14,784 2,980 1967 478 21,680 (1,060) 21,097 5,918 1968 14,463 46,748 2,428 63,629 27,241 1969 71,443 18,000 (926) 88,516 42,574 1970 18,913 60,500 1,264 80,677 37,728 1971 43,801 10,500 1,581 55,882 22,125 From time to time, the appellant made several short-term loans to the company in order to comply with the Toronto Stock Exchange requirements. ... See Olympia Floor & Wall Tile (Quebec) Ltd v MNR, [1970] CTC 99; 70 DTC 6085 and Pigott Investments v The Queen, [1973] CTC 693; 73 DTC 5507 (above). ...

He was a member of the partnership of E & B Cowan, Consulting Engineers, founded in 1945. ... I have found that this project has kept me young — I should have quit when I was 65 but I have found that working on this project has kept me young — it keeps me wanting to make sure that this happens and we are going to make it happen this year because we are working with a major company, a US company, this is the trouble up here you know we don’t think like they do down there, and we are going to build a demonstration plant in Alberta — a small mill — now the sulphite — the sulphite and sulphate — now sulphate is worse than sulphite, but the sulphite is something that you smell. ... Law — Case Law — Analysis 4.01 Law The provisions of the Income Tax Act involved in the present case are paragraphs 18(1)(a) and (b), 20(1)(t) and subsection 37(1). ...

The notice of appeal reads in part as follows: — On December 31, 1971, during the years on appeal and even today, the appellant was and still is a farmer. — On December 31, 1971, during the years on appeal and even today, the appellant was and still is the owner of a property located in the town of Mascouche, which he had acquired from his father on June 11, 1963. — Long before December 31, 1971, the town of Mascouche had experienced, and was still experiencing during the years on appeal, a substantial amount of property development. — On December 31, 1971, such development was occurring on land adjacent to the appellant’s land. — During the years on appeal, various sales of parcels of land were made by the appellant. — By notices of assessment issued on January 20, 1977, the respondent assessed a capital gain for the years on appeal, relying on the fact that the fair market value of the appellant’s land on December 31, 1971 was three cents ($0.03) per square foot. — On June 23, 1977, the appellant filed notices of objection to the said assessments. — To lend support to his notices of objection, the appellant asked Les Estimateurs Professionnels Leroux, Beaudry, Picard et Associés Inc to prepare an appraisal of his land, dated December 31, 1971. — The said report established that the value of the said land was nine cents ($0.09) per square foot. In his reply to the notice of appeal, the respondent states: — Pursuant to agreements of sale between the purchaser and the appellant in 1973, the latter sold various parcels of land in 1973, 1974 and 1975; — the sale price for the various properties had been agreed to between the parties in 1973 when the agreements of sale were signed; — as a result of the sales of these properties, the appellant reported the following amounts as Capital gains: Statement of sale of capital property 1973 Sale of 70,872 sq ft at 8¢ per sq ft $ 5,669.76 Value on 31/12/71:.0772 per sq ft 5,315.40 Capital gain $ 354.36 Statement of sale of capital property 1974 Sale of 55,449 sq ft at 8¢ per sq ft $44,279.92 Value on 31/12/71:.0772 per sq ft 41,512.42 Capital gain $ 2,767.50 Statement of sale of capital property 1975 First sale Sale of 321,685 sq ft at 80 per sq ft $25,734.80 Value on 31/12/71:.0772 per sq ft 24,126.37 Capital gain $ 1,608.43 Second sale Sale of 30,165 sq ft $ 3,000.00 Value on 31/12/71:.0772 per sq ft 2,262.00 Capital gain $ 738.00 Total Capital Gain $ 2,346.43 — the respondent appraised the said properties in order to determine their value on December 31, 1971 and valued them at.02770 per sq ft; — accordingly, by assessments dated July 7, 1978, the respondent established the following amounts as capital gains: 1973 Proceeds of disposition $ 5,669.76 Adjusted cost basis (.02770 per sq ft) 1,963.15 Revised capital gain $ 3,706.61 1974 Proceeds of disposition $44,279.92 Adjusted cost basis (.02770 per sq ft) 15,330.54 Revised capital gain $28,949.38 1975 Proceeds of disposition $28,734.80 Adjusted cost basis (.02770 per sq ft) 9,746.24 Revised capital gain $18,988.56 Contentions For the appellant: — The respondent’s appraisal is unacceptable, because it does not take into account the special location of the appellant’s property. — The appraisal by Les Estimateurs Professionnels Leroux, Beaudry, Picard & Associés Inc, a copy of which is attached as an integral part hereof, is the only fair appraisal in the circumstances. For the respondent: — The burden of showing that the respondent’s appraisal is incorrect rests on the appellant. ...

Crops and Seeds — All Wheat $ 1,333.12 — Barley 1,117.90 2. Western Grain Stabilization Payments 25.57 3. Livestock Sold — Cattle (19) 7,386.81 4. Other Subsidies — Pipeline Easement 469.00 5. ... Law — Cases at Law — Analysis 4.01 Law The main provision of the Income Tax Act involved is subsection 31(1). ...

In 1967 the firm of Frappier & Holland was incorporated by the appellant and her husband who also worked as an investment dealer for Ord, Wallington & Co Ltd, and operated a business similar to that of Ord, Wallington & Co Ltd. ... Alternatively, he holds that the amount of $49,029.03, if expended, was not spent to earn income from a business she was Carrying on but was spent to protect the future business of Frappier & Holland Inc with which she was connected or, again, the amount was spent to acquire for Frappier & Holland Inc the clients who, through her, formerly bought securities from Ord, Wallington & Co Ltd which in either case the respondent contends would be a nondeductible capital gain. ‘ Even though the appellant testified that she was on a strict commission basis with Ord, Wallington & Co Ltd, and that she received no directives from the company as to working hours or the manner of dealing with clients, I am of the opinion that the appellant was not an independent contractor but was an employee of Ord, Wallington & Co. ... There is no evidence that the appellant billed Ord, Wallington & Co Ltd for services rendered as an independent contractor. ...