Search - 枣庄市市中区 智博公考 地址 电话

However no evidence was produced as to the efforts made by the appellant company to have the plan approved, nor was there any indication that the city had refused to approve the plan. 7 On October 19, 1971 the appellant company forwarded another $1,000 to A & W for a further extension of its offer to purchase but this amount was not accepted by A & W (Exhibit A-5). 8 Also on October 19, 1974 Trojan Industrial Properties Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Trojan”) made an offer to purchase the land at McLeod Trail and 94th Avenue SE from the appellant company for $250,000—which offer was accepted by the appellant company (Exhibit A-6). 9 On October 28, 1971 the appellant company forwarded to A & W a cheque for $39,500, being the balance of the down-payment on the purchase of the McLeod Trail property which was not accepted by A & W (Exhibit A-7). 10 On October 28, 1971 a caveat forbidding registration of the McLeod Trail property was filed by the appellant company (Exhibit A-9). In a letter of October 29, 1971 (Exhibit A-8) A & W's solicitors, on the assumption that Richfield Real Estate Ltd and Mr Brad Calvin, who had been acting on behalf of A & W had business interests with the appellant company, and particularly in connection with the proposed sale with Trojan, stated that A & W was no longer prepared to grant possession of the McLeod property unless a statutory declaration was signed by Messrs Calvin and Kitzul that no such business interests existed between them. ... Because of A & W's interest in the property, the appellant company could not, by itself, effectuate the sale to Trojan. ...

TDL 1972 1972 1973 1973 1974 1974 Legal fees of Gowling & Henderson — $16,500.00 $10,857.00 Legal fees of Hughes, Laishley $3,646.50 16,055.03 2,246.00 Fees paid to The Clarkson Company Limited — 39,055.47 — ACL 1972 1972 1973 1973 1974 1974 Legal fees of Gowling & Henderson $6,283.91 $ 3,000.00 $10,844.14 Legal fees of Hughes, Laishley 6,510.50 3,000.00 21,813.59 Further, the respondent assessed each individual appellant herein on the basis that legal expenses were incurred by each one qua shareholder and when same were paid by the company a benefit was conferred on the individual appellant and the benefit (being a pro rata of the legal fees paid by the company) was added to her or his declared income in accordance with the provisions of subsection 15(1) of the Income Tax Act. ... Gloria Assaly consulted Messrs Gowling & Henderson, as did Thomas C Assaly. ... The Local Master appointed Messrs Thorne, Gunn & Company (see Exhibit A-16). ...

A severe storm on or about March 13, 1973 caused substantial damage to the shoreline facing the river in Lambton County and resulted in such damage to the wooden retaining wall that a significant quantity of gravel was washed into the river. — In the spring of 1976, the 1976 retaining wall that forms the subject matter of the present appeal was constructed to protect and maintain an existing asset — the land — from damage caused by erosion. ... Contentions For the appellant: — The construction of the 1976 retaining wall constituted a repair which neither materially added to the value of the subject land nor appreciably prolonged its life but which merely kept it in an ordinary, efficient operating condition. — The 1976 retaining wall did not add to the value of the subject realty but it did prevent the subject land from becoming worthless. — The 1976 retaining wall did not create a lasting advantage or bring into existence a new asset but was intended to maintain an existing asset — the land — and to preserve the asset from the ravages of erosion. — The 1976 retaining wall became an integral component of the subject land and had no value apart from its connection to the subject land. — The events subsequent to the acquisition of the subject land by the appellant, namely the rising water level, the increasingly rapid river current and the storm damage that made the repair of the 1964 retaining wall vital to preserve the non-depreciable asset — the land — from further deterioration due to erosion, were the reasons for the construction of the retaining wall in 1976. For the respondent: — The new steel dock was extended further than the old wooden dock; — the new steel dock appreciably prolonged the life of the property in question and arrested deterioration. ...

Thomas Summerson & Sons Limited, [1926] 1 K.B. 131, 9 TC 577, which was followed in No 729 v. ...

C.R. 308, [1967] C.T.C. 165, 67 D.T.C. 5114, in which Cattanach, J adopts the opinion expressed by Locke, J in Sutton Lumber & Trading Company Limited v Minister of National Revenue, [1953] 2 Ex. ...

. — The business of the partnership was the development of a racquet club in Richmond Hill. — The Appellant and his partners each spent a considerable amount of time working on the development of such a facility but ultimately discontinued the business on June 1, 1978 after the partnership failed to obtain permits from the Town of Richmond Hill for such a facility. — The partnership incurred a loss of $10,124 in the fiscal period ended June 30, 1977. ... Notwithstanding the contentions of counsel for the appellant, it is my view that the reverse is the situation in this appeal — “Richmond Hill Squash Club” was not a “business” to operate and earn income from a squash club — but only to investigate the feasibility of doing so. ... But the amounts involved, if deductible at all, would be deductible from the income — if any — of the corporation(s) in the circumstances of this case. ...

. — On May 20, 1975, the appellant shareholder(s) received a loan from Morris in the amount of $24,746.33; — During his 1975 taxation year, the appellant was a shareholder of Morris by virtue of being the registered holder of one share; — The purpose of the loan was to enable the appellant to purchase a building situated at 8215 Champ d’Eau in the City of St Leonard, District of Montreal; — The lending of money did not form part of Morris’ ordinary business; — On November 30, 1976, the said loan in the amount of $24,746.33 was repaid to the lending company, and on the same day, Morris reloaned the same amount of $24,746.33 guaranteed by a mortgage in favour of the lender, Morris. The position as outlined by the appellants was: — The taxpayer(s), in 1975, (each) owned 50 per cent of the issued and outstanding common shares of SERIT HOLDINGS LIMITED (“Serit”). — Serit owned (and continues to own) 96 of the 100 issued and outstanding common shares of Morris. ... Contentions For the appellants: — The taxpayer(s) was not a “Shareholder” of Morris. ...

The facts set out in paragraph 6 of the reply to the notice of appeal are admitted and read as follows: In assessing the appellant for the 1975 and 1976 taxation years, the respondent relied, inter alia, on the following presumptions of fact: (a) by notarial deed dated August 1, 1962, Dame Marguerite F Doriga ‘gave, as a trust donation to Les Fiduciares de la Cité du District de Montréal Ltée’, a number of securities, ‘securities which the Trust admits it has received and taken in trust for the following purposes: — to pay to the said Marguerite F Doriga, for the rest of her life, the income form the above-mentioned securities’; (b) during the years under dispute, the appellant resided in Canada; (c) during the entire period under dispute, Dame Marguerite F Doriga resided in Spain; (d) in accordance with the trust deed referred to in subparagraph (a) of this paragraph, during the 1975 and 1976 taxation years the appellant paid Mrs Doriga $11,744.14 and $14,512.07 respectively; (e) the appellant neglected to withhold and submit to the Receiver General, in the name of Dame Marguerite F Doriga, the amounts of $898.08 and $2,980.85 as income tax payable by the said beneficiary. ... He referred the Board to the following decisions: List of authorities A — DWN N Walters, Law of Trust in Canada, pp 4-6; B — Canadian Income Taxation of Trust. Fiscal Definition of Trust, pp 7-12; C — Quinn v Leathen, [1901] AC 495; D — J N O’Meara and others v Bennett and others, [1922] AC 80; E — Dame Eleonore Curran v Meyer Davis, [1933] S.C.R. 283; F — Laverdure v DuTremblay, [1937] AC 666; G — Guarantee Trust of New York v The King, [1947] S.C.R. 183; H — No 199 v MNR, 11 Tax ABC 353; [1954] DTC 488; I — Charles Glass Greenshields v The Queen, [1958] S.C.R. 216; J — Redford v National Trust Company and Dame Maclnness, [1968] QB 689; K — Income Tax Act, 1972, ss 483 to 523; L — Higher et al v Crown Trust Company, 5 NR 561; M — Joseph Morris v MRQ, [1975] CP 250: N — The Queen v Littler, [1978] CTC 235; 78 DTC 6179. ...

The list did not include all the properties managed by Murdock & Maber Agencies Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Murdock & Maber”). The appellant contends that the expenditure of $30,000 made by it for the purchase of the list of property management accounts from Murdock & Maber was an expense properly deductible from income and should not be considered in any way as a capital outlay or as an “eligible” capital expenditure. ... All of the accounts in the list provided by Murdock & Maber required approaching the owners and the negotiating of new contracts by the appellant. ...

The appellant purchased the farm in 1976 for a price of approximately $155,000 allocated as follows: Land — $99,500 Buildings — 29,000 Equipment — 15,500 Cattle — 11,000 Since purchasing the farm, the appellant has cleared and “tiled” 48 acres which were uncleared at the time of purchase, and now utilizes the total of 100 acres in growing crops and looking after his cattle. ... The single and sole word “income” does not lose its basic value as “profit” or “gain” — (the opposite to “loss”) — just because it may be used as part of the term “source of income”. ... Economic reality did not, and still does not, provide the major motivation for this appellant’s dedication to the farm — it remains, as indicated, a sideline business no matter how substantial in size when compared with his chief source of income — his employment. ...