Search - 枣庄市市中区 智博公考 地址 电话

Labour costs incurred for improvements to the hotel $ 1,489.50 For 1973 1. ... Bonus to Bernard Gauthier $ 9,000.00 3. Wages for two part-time employees $10,000.00 4. ... If the Board takes this as a base, the total cost of the materials would be $27,250 ($14,900 — 55 x 100), that is, a difference of $9,500 ($36.750 —. $27,250) with respect to the. total. ...

If those were the facts, then there would be no exemption for the principal residence on the disposition of the property in 1977 — all of the capital gain would have been with respect to rental properties. ... The Minister in 1977 did allow the appellant a principal residence exemption to the extent of / of the total capital gain realized in that year. ... On that basis, the fraction of / is a mathematically more accurate expression of the ratio and, in my opinion, the apportionment of not more than / of the land adjacent to the building can be reasonably regarded as contributing to the use and enjoyment of the apartment unit occupied by the appellant as his principal residence. ...

The notice of appeal in its critical portions reads: The appellant, Dr D A Porter, was employed as Assistant Superintendent — Personnel by the Edmonton Public School Board during the years 1967 to 1969. ... The position of the respondent was that: — the appellant acquired in or before 1967, for personal use, a residential property at 26 Westbrook Drive, in the City of Edmonton in the Province of Alberta; — the property at 26 Westbrook Drive was occupied as a personal residence by the appellant and his family during the years 1967, 1968 and 1969; — following the appellant’s move to British Columbia in November 1969, the Edmonton residence remained vacant until it was sold; — the rental expenses claimed as a deduction from income in respect of property known as 26 Westbrook Drive, Edmonton were not outlays or expenses incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income within the meaning of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 12 of the Act but were personal or living expenses within the meaning of paragraph (h) of subsection (1) of section 12 and paragraph (ae) of subsection (1) of section 139 of the Act; — the house situated on the said property was not acquired for the purpose of gaining or producing income within the meaning of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section 1102 of the Income Tax Regualtions and, therefore, no capital cost allowance is permitted under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 11 of the Act: — rental expenses claimed as a deduction from income in 1972 in respect of property known as 26 Westbrook Drive, Edmonton, Alberta, were not outlays or expenses incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income within the meaning of paragraph 18(1) (a) of the Act but were personal or living expenses within the meaning of paragraph 18(1)(h) and subsection 248(1) of the Act; — the said property was a personal use property within the meaning of paragraph 54(f) of the Act and therefore the allowable capital loss and net capital loss deductions claimed by the taxpayer under paragraphs 38(b) and 111(1)(b) of the Act in respect of the disposition of the property have been properly disallowed in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph 40(2)(g)(iii) of the Act. ... The implementation of subsection 20(6) also requires adherence to other standard income tax rules — and of specific relevance to this case it is necessary that the “conversion” be for the “purpose of gaining or producing income therefrom”. ...

For those years, the Minister regarded the appellant company as having residence in Canada and reassessed the company on the following amounts of income: 1971 — $137,772.47 1972 — $102,430.00 1973 — $ 44,300.00 The decision in this appeal will be determinative of the issues raised in the other appeal of Gini International Inc as to the applicability of withholding tax on dividends paid to Gini International Inc. ... Referring to Sulley v The Attorney General (1860), 5 H and N 711, Lovell & Christmas, Limited v The Commissioner of Taxes, [1908] AC 46 and Grainger & Son v Gough (1896), 3 TC 462, he stated that the function of purchasing goods for export abroad is not the carrying- on of a business in the country of export. ... According to counsel for the respondent, there were two important differences between the case of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co Ltd (as agents for Firestone Tire & Rubber Co of Akron, Ohio, USA) v Lewellin (H M Inspector of Taxes) 37 TC 111 cited by the appellant and the case at bar. ...

Contentions For the appellant: — The taxpayer, at the inception of and prior to acquisition, took the initi- ative and procured an agreement between the co-owners, in writing, maifestly designed to preclude sale. — The taxpayer has a demonstrable history of procuring real estate, with partners, and eventually acquiring the total interest, and never with the intention of resale. — The taxpayer had a consistent portfolio of investments in realty since 1956 (which continues to now) obviously not intended for resale, and has never engaged in speculation in retail, even up to the present time. — No effort had ever been made to sell the property notwithstanding inordinately attractive circumstances for sale (if acquisition and sale for profit was intended) by reason of development relating to proposed Highway 401, widely publicized in or about April, 1971. — The property was only sold once expropriation become imminent. — Investment in realty as a hedge against inflation is the antithesis of an adventure in the nature of trade. ... For the respondent: — The appellant at all material times was a lawyer practising in the City of London, whose practice included real estate transactions, and as a result thereof the appellant was very knowledgeable with respect to land values and speculation in land in and about the City of London; — in purchasing the property in 1969, the appellant had three partners, one of whom being a real estate agent, and another being a trader in real estate; — the appellant and his partners did nothing to improve the property or to convert it into an income-producing asset. ...

The taxpayer and his wife acquired their home in the country — containing some six acres of land — about 1949. ... The expenditures of $1,098.03, mentioned earlier herein, which were made by the taxpayer in his 1968 taxation year are as follows: Proportion of total land taxes amounting to about $400 $ 146.60 Fence Repairs 8.72 Machinery and Truck Expenses (station wagon) —Gasoline and Oil 17.64 —Repairs, Licenses, Insurance 12.58 Automobile Expenses: —Gasoline and Oil 20% of $87.83 17.57 —Repairs, Licenses, Insurance 20% of $201.86 40.37 Feed and Straw (for trees) 11.34 Seed and Plants 40.09 Fertilizers, Sprays, Other Chemicals 4.64 Light, Power 20% of $85.79 17.16 Other Expenses (Specify) — Use of office in house, tool shed and driving shed 1/7 of $737.95 105.42 Capital Cost Allowance (From Schedule) 675.90 Total Expenses $1,098.03 It should be noted that, in his Notice of Objection herein dated March 12, 1970, the taxpayer stated — “I contest this disallowance of farm- ing loss — details to follow”. ... So I pictured the bush there as being marketable some day and I planned it for the time, just as our government plans for seventy years of age, charges us for our old age pension now and they pay you at seventy years — it is now down to 65 years l realize, but it was originally seventy years — that is the type of thing I was planning for, an income for that time of life. ...

Several of the particulars contained in each of the above assessments “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” are set out in the following table: Original Taxation Amount Assessment taxpayer year end in issue A” — 1458091-2 First Roman June 30, 1963 $ 31,940.00 ‘B”1458089-2 First Roman June 30, 1962 140,000.00 ‘C” —1458088-2 Trans-Canada March 31, 1964 72,980.57 ‘D” — 1458094-2 second Roman June 30, 1965 320,588.81 The following are the particulars of the aforesaid single items in dispute herein as they are spelled out in the above-mentioned assess- ments “A”, “B”, “C” and “D”: Assessment (Primeau Argo Block Company Ltd) $ 31,940.00 “B” Add: Income from trading in securities (Minerales Inndustriales Del Peru) $140,000.00 “C” Add: Profit on disposal of mineral leases $ 72,380.57 “D” Add: Income from trading in securities (Black Hawk Mining Limited) $320,588.81 seemed to me that it was more desirable to get out my decision herein at this time supported only by short reasons general in nature than to hold up the completion of the matter somewhat indefinitely to enable me to summarize the voluminous facts of the matter and to prepare more adequate reasons. ... It should be further observed that, while the profits stated in assessments “B”, “C” and “D” allegedly arose out of the dealings of First Roman, Trans-Canada and Second Roman (ie the three predecessor corporations of the appellant Third Roman) in shares of mining corporations and mineral leases, it is, obviously, more accurate to say — on the basis of the evidence and material before me in this matter — that the above-mentioned profits arose out of the realization of certain capital assets by the three corporations mentioned above in the ordinary course of carrying on the operation of their respective mining businesses. ... In the result, as indicated earlier herein: the appeal of First Roman with respect to its 1963 taxation year should be dismissed and the relevant assessment “A” — 1458091-2 confirmed; the appeal of First Roman with respect to its 1962 taxation year should be allowed and the amount of $140,000 covering income from trading in securities (Minerales Industriales Del Peru) deleted from the relevant assessment “B” — 1458089-2; the appeal of Trans-Canada with respect to its 1964 taxation year should be allowed and the amount of $72,380.57 covering profit on disposal of mineral leases deleted from the relevant assessment “C” — 1458088-2, and the appeal of Second Roman with respect to its 1965 taxation year should be allowed and the amount of $320,588.81 covering income from trading in securities (Black Hawk Mining Limited) deleted from the relevant assessment “D” — 1458094-2. ...

The four directors of the Company were: David Appleby- President — 2 common shares ‘Joe Tanenbaum — Secretary-Treasurer A Freeman- Director Harold Tanenbaum — Director Eight common shares were issued to the directors and the sum of $8 for the shares was deposited in a separate bank account. ... At an average cost of US $342.67 per acre, my share of profit of land sales in 1973 should be calculated as follows: Land sales $188,000 Less — 50% allocated to Pinetree Investments Limited 94,000 $94,000 Less- 6/20th allocated to David Appleby 28,200 65,800 Less — Cost of land (14/20 x 155 acres @ $342.67) 37,180 Gross profit $28,620 Less — Expenses per financial statements 34,316 Less- 50% allocated to Pinetree Investments Limited 17,158 17,158 Less — 6/20th allocated to David Appleby 5,147 12,011 Net profit $16,609 My share of net profit is 1 /14th of $16,609 or $1,186. 5. ... On June 30, 1975, the appellant wrote the following letter to the Director of the District Taxation Office in Toronto: June 30/75 Sidney Zionce 71 Fontainbleau Dr Willowdale Ont Director — Taxation Revenue Canada Taxation 36 Adelaide St E TORONTO Ont Dear Sir: Re 1973 & 1974 income. ...

As I see it, therefore the $810,000 was for all the physical assets involved — land and buildings (including the gas pumps). ... Also, I would emphasize that the Act is perfectly clear — the principal residence is the housing unit — and only the housing unit — anything beyond that is apparently a concession to practicality and reasonableness. ... I note, merely for the record, that the “access” allowed by the Minister was in fact a 66-foot wide road allowance — generous — perhaps over-generous — as a private right of way to the housing unit by any reasonable standard. ...

This is why a management company named GMBD Ltée (“G” for Mr Gagnon, “M” for Mr Martin, “B” for Mr Bélanger and “D” for Mr Dumoulin — the four key men in MSS Inc) was incorporated to hold a majority of the MSS Inc shares. ... From this date onward, dividends and management fees were paid by the appellant to GMBD Ltée as follows: 1976 1977 Dividends $ 37,014 $ 58,904 Management fees $ 33,600 $ 40,800 The appellant’s turnover was as follows: $4,531,350 in 1976 $3,961,061 In 1977 This reduction of $900,000 in 1977 is explained by an eight-month strike at Alcan: this company represented 50 per cent of the appellant company’s sales. ...