Search - 枣庄市市中区 智博公考 地址 电话

Argument The relevant points highlighted by counsel for the appellants, which had been brought out in evidence, were: (For Finch) — Phillip Moubray knew the orchard business; — He had some indication that the land would be suitable; — He acquired some equipment; — He cleared about 25 to 30 acres; — Soil tests were done; — The climate was good; — The irrigation costs discouraged him from continuing in the grape business; — He planted some 4,000 Scotch pine trees; — He fenced the property; — He ran some cattle on it; — There was little speculation on land going on in the area at the time of acquisition; — He wanted to try something different that selling real estate, and going back into the vineyard business was natural; — The land still remains undeveloped. (For McKinley) — Purchased a farm and potential orchard; — It had substantial timber on it; — Some limited logging was done; — Property was fenced; — Some cherries were planted as an experiment; — Irrigation was improved; — Ran some cattle; — Property held for some 14 years; — The land still remains to this day in its same undeveloped condition. (For Peachland) — Thirty-eight (38) acre operating farm; — Two thousand fruit trees; — Of three (3) managers, only one had been satisfactory; — Trees were being destroyed by animals; — The land and farm remain relatively unchanged since the sale. ...

In assessing Appellant for the 1976, 1977 and 1978 taxation years, Respondent relied on the following presumptions of fact, inter alia: (a) Since 1971, Appellant’s principal occupation has been the construction, sale and management of his residential rental buildings; (b) During the taxation years in question, Appellant disposed of seven of his residential rental buildings in Longueuil and St-Hubert, in particular: Date of Year of Address Construction Sale Sale LONGUEUIL 1920 rue Lavallée 1-5-1971 1976 1180-84 rue Lavallée 1-1-1972 1976 ST-HUBERT 515 rue Lamarre 1-5-1974 1977 525 rue Lamarre 1-9-1974 1977 535 rue Lamarre 1-12-1974 1978 555 rue Lamarre in 1975 1978 575 rue Lamarre in 1975 — 2214 rue Séguin in 1976 — 2234 rue Séguin in 1976 — 2284 rue Séguin in 1976 — 1385 rue Nobert in 1976 — 1420 rue Beauregard in 1977 — 10,120 boul Racine in 1977 — (c) Appellant sold the said properties during the period in question in order to finance the construction of apartment buildings on new properties purchased during his 1976, 1977 and 1978 taxation years; (d) The said properties were purchased and sold by Appellant with the benefit of his knowledge as a professional carpenter and building-permit holder who knew a great deal about the construction business; (e) At the time he purchased the said properties Appellant expected to resell them at a profit, and this was one of the chief factors that induced him to buy them; (f) When he purchased the said properties Appellant’s secondary if not principal intention was to make a profit on the sale of the residential rental buildilngs, as he in fact did during the taxation years in question. ...

This new (revised) expense amount will be factored by + 10% for 1975. This indicates a 1975 operating statement of: Gross Income Projected $20,437.31 x 1.10 = $22,481.04 Plus $100/mos x 12 = $ 1,200.00 $23,681.04 Less Expenses $10,175.22 less — 514.65 609.28 150.69 116.00 $ 8,784.60 x 1.10 = $ 9,663.06 Net Income Projected (1975) $14,017.98 This projected net income, in turn, indicates a property value of: Net Income to Land & Improvments $14,018 Less Income Attributed to Land ($113,700 @ 7%)- 7,959 Income Imputed to Improvements $ 6,059 Capitalize @ 11% (7% plus 4% recapture) $ 55,082 Add Site Value $113,700 Property Value Indicated by Income Approach: $168,782 Say: $168,800 CORRELATION AND FINAL VALUE ESTIMATES Property Value Indicated by Cost Approach $172,200 Property Value Indicated by Income Approach $168,800 The property values found by the two approaches fall within a narrow range of $3,400 or approximately 2%, and both are considered of equal reliability in estimating the property value. ... An examination of the comparables used (finally those of Southward) and the results obtained is very illuminating when done in the following way: Adjustments Comparable Time Location & Physical Total % Total % # (Both) Southward Osland Southward Osland 1) + 6-20-55-14%-49% 2) + 7-10-45-3%-38% 3)-4-10-45-14%-49% 4) +19-10-45 + 9°/o-26% 5)-4-15-50-19%-54% Total Adjustment-41 %-216% Average Adjustment-8.2%-43.2% For the best comparables Southward could put forward, an average adjustment of-8.2% was required to bring about a relationship with the subject property as he saw it. ...

Evidence The following “Statement of Net Worth’, prepared by the appellant’s accountants of St Catharines, Ont, was provided to the Board: STATEMENT OF NET WORTH April 1/74- April 1/75- Assets March 31/75 March 31/76 Current: Cash on Hand and in Bank — Cash on Hand $10,734.73 — T-D Bank — Vine & Queenston +1865 13.26 — B of M — Lakeshore & Geneva +100-2-172 — $ 280.00 Niagara Credit Union: Share Savings +19742-006 — 2,030.74 Plan 24 Savings |19742-016 — 2,000.13 Total Current Assets $10,747.99 $ 4,310.87 Fixed: Residence — 5 Bayshore Cres. $45,864.98 $45,864.98 Furniture & Appliances 1,414.76 1,414.76 Vehicles — Truck 900.00 900 00 — Wife’s Car 700.00 700.00 — Car — 1,367.00 Equipment — 1,672.36 Swimming Pool — 1,650.00 Total Fixed Assets $48,879.74 $53,569 10 Total Assets $59,627.73 $57,879.97 Liabilities: Mortgage — 5 Bayshore Cres. 25,500.00 25,400.00 Net Worth $34,127.73 $32,479.97 The critical amount which was not accepted by the Minister on the above statement is the “Cash on Hand” of $10,734.73 at March 31/75. ... I just had a look but I didn’t actually — I handled it but I didn’t count it. ... Sir, I had more, sir, but with what had gone on in England — Q. You had more what? ...

Les états financiers des quatre compagnies de M Bernèche ont été déposés comme exhibits: Les Meubles de Maskinongé Inc: au 31 avril 1971 Exhibit A-9 au 31 octobre 1971 Exhibit A-5 Les Chaises Maskinongé Inc: au 31 avril 1971 Exhibit A-10 au 31 octobre 1971 Exhibit A-6 Maskinongé Furniture Transport Inc: au 31 décembre 1970 Exhibit A-7 Les Produits Maskin Inc: au 31 décembre 1970 Exhibit A-8 Ces états financiers démontrent entre autres: a) que le résultat des opérations signifie des pertes au 31/10/71 — pour Les Meubles de Maskinongé Inc ($ 84,173.01) — pour Les Chaises Maskinongé Inc ($ 2,024.76) des bénéfices au 31/12/70 — pour Les Produits Maskin Inc $ 1,008.17 — pour Maskinongé Furniture Transport Inc $ 25.68 b) que les bénéfices non répartis à la fin de la dernière période s’élèvent à — pour Les Meubles de Maskinongé Inc $ 52,288.81 — pour Les Chaises Maskinongé Inc ($ 396.05) — pour Les Produits Maskin Inc $ 9,112.22 — pour Maskinongé Furniture Transport Inc $ 18,610.41 c) que les accroissements et réductions de fonds de roulement s’établissent ainsi a la fin de la dernière période — Les Meubles de Maskinongé Inc ($100,623.95) — Les Chaises Maskinongé Inc $ 3,459.91 d) que les disponibilités, les exigibilités et les dettes à long terme à la fin de la dernière période s’établissent ainsi: Disponibilités Exigibilités D.L. Terme Les Meubles de Maskinongé Inc $ 790,289.21 $ 824,301.37 $100,971.55 Les Chaises Maskinongé Inc $ 205,578.43 $ 181,243.90 $ 57,772.92 Les Produits Maskin Inc $ 20,524.52 S$ 9,323.43 Nil Maskinongé Furniture Transport Inc $ 25,926.38 $ 18,225.93 $ 27,156.42 TOTAL $1,042,318.54 $1,033,094.63 $185,900.89 e) que le coût du bâtiment, du terrain, de l’équipement et de machinerie au 31 octobre 1971 s’élève à $618,192.20 et que la valeur non dépréciée est de $240,022.52. ... Front <& Simcoe Ltd c MRN, [1960] CTC 123; 60 DTC 1081; 15. Sa Majesté la Reine c Lagueux & Frères Inc, [1974[CTC 687; 74 DTC 6569; 16. ...

This was allocated in the following manner to the 1972 through 1976 taxation years: Church of Christ Development Co Ltd Reconciliation of Income 1972 — Net Profits previously reported $ 25,316.29 — Additional Profits- per Revised Balance Sheet 92,733.70 — Revised Taxable Income — (1/5 $590,249.92) $118,049.99 — Adjustments to Active Business Income (118,049.99) — Adjstments to Canadian Investment Income 29,248.26 — Taxable Dividends Deduction (2,189.35) — Further Revised Taxable Income 27,058.91 1973 — Net Profits previously reported 37,886.16 — Additional Profits- per Revised Balance Sheet 80,162.83 — Revised Taxable Income — (1/5 x $590,249.92) 118,049.99 — Adjustments to Active Business Income (20,301.69) — Adjstments to Canadian Investment Income 47,985.34 — Taxable Dividends Deduction (6,198.77) — Further Revised Taxable Income 139,534.87 1974 — Net Profits previously reported 19,428.64 — Additional Profits- per Revised Balance Sheet 98,621.34 — Revised Taxable Income — (1/5 x $590,249.92) 118,049.99 — Adjustments to Active Business Income (37,536.16) — Adjstments to Canadian Investment Income 43,374.62 — Taxable Dividends Deduction (11,864.85) — Further Revised Taxable Income 167,827.09 1975 — Net Profits previously reported 26,085.04 — Additional Profits- per Revised Balance Sheet 91,964.94 — Revised Taxable Income — (1/5 x $590,249.92) 118,049.99 — Adjustments to Active Business Income (76,127.21) — Adjustments to Canadian Investment Income 96,645.09 — Taxable Dividends Deduction (21,613.11) — Further Revised Taxable Income 114,954.75 1976 — Net Profits previously reported 35,619.76 — Additional Profits- per Revised Balance Sheet 82,430.22 — Revised Taxable Income — (1/5 x $590,249.92) 118,049.99 — Adjustments to Active Business Income (135,714.53) — Adjustments to Canadian Investment Income 135,033.58 — Taxable Dividends Deduction (19,035.10) — Further Revised Taxable Income 98,333.93 Further, the respondent added a taxable capital gain of $47,313.35 to the appellant’s 1974 tax return. ... The following reply dated June 5, 1958 had been received by the Company: DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE — TAXATION DIVISION 444 Sussex Drive — Ottawa 2, Ont 5th June, 1958. ... The corporation tax returns for these years were also made available to the Board and each one did contain a set of financial statements — Operating Statement and Balance Sheet — but in the appropriate space provided, it was noted by the appellant that this was a “Non-Profit” corporation — and no tax was indicated as payable. ...

In the years 1962 to 1968, both inclusive, the appellant leased under 50 year land leases a total of 229 serviced residential lots as follows: 1962 — 3 1963 — 81 1964 — 41 1965 — 52 1966 — 37 1967 — 2 1968 — 13 229 5. ... From the date that the serviced residential lots were ready for leasing, to the end of 1973, the last year under assessment six leasehold tenants (of the aforesaid total of 229) had exercised their purchase option as follows: 1970 — 2 1971 — 1 1972 — 1 1973 — 2 6 14. To the date of the hearing of this appeal 22 further leasehold tenants (out of the remaining total of 223) have exercised their purchase options as follows: 1974 — 8 1975 — 1 1976 — 5 1977 — 2 1978 — 6 22 15. ...

My property is very large — 120 acres — and the income, when it materializes, will be based principally upon the two following sources: (1) the sale of wood — I am Currently seeding; (2) enclosure for the raising and hunting of deer — seeding here as well. For the respondent: — Since the acquisition of this land, no large-scale activity designed to exploit the said land and to establish thereon a commercial or farming business has been undertaken; — the appellant’s sole motivation since the acquisition of this land, and in particular with respect to the 1977 taxation year, is of a purely personal nature; — the said land has never generated any income since it was acquired, in particular during the 1977 taxation year; — in any event, the nature of the expenses incurred does not constitute a valid criterion for establishing the existence of a commercial or farming business on the appellant’s land; — the expenses incurred by the appellant in respect of the said land were not incurred for the purpose or with the reasonable expectation of deriving a profit from the operation of a business. ... The appellant’s income tax return contained the following financial statement: Jacques April 1977 Restricted farming losses — gentleman farmer No income Expenses incurred: Repairs, tools $ 806 Feed and straw 259 Wages and salaries 580 Gasoline, heating oil, oil 832 Contract labour 2,926 Repairs — vehicles 284 Meal surplus ($125) 216 Insurance (truck) 275 Taxes and permits 197 Interest 540 Poultry purchases 212 Livestock purchases 125 Electricity 26 CCA — Vehicles ($11,243) — — Wire fence ($919) — Total $7,278 Allowable for tax purposes: 1st installment — $2,500 $2,500 2nd installment — $4,778 x 50% 2,389 $4,889 Pleading Counsel for the appellant referred to the following decisions: Al Oeming Investments Ltd v MNR, [1972] CTC 2008; 72 DTC 1057; Douglas C Matthews v MNR, [1972] CTC 2643; 72 DTC 1526; Her Majesty The Queen v Douglas C Matthews, [1974] CTC 230; 74 DTC 6193. ...

On December 2, 1975, CCIG placed an order for a Government of Canada bond bearing interest at 9 Z> % per annum, maturing on June 15, 1994, for a total price of $100,502.74. ... As a result of the above transactions, the amounts at issue were included in the appellant’s tax return by using the following calculations: Effect on Each income in member’s the year portion ended Total /5 1975 1976 Interest income —received $4,750.00 $ 950.00 $ 950.00 $ 0.00 —received on sale 780.82 156.16 83.29 72.87 $5,530.82 $1,106.16 $1,033.29 $ 72.87 Interest expense — incurred on purchase of bond $4,502.74 $ 900.55 $ 900.55 $ 0.00 —bank loan interest 926.15 185.23 121.34 63.89 $5,428.89 $1,085.78 $1,021.89 $ 63.89 Net Interest Income 101.93 20.38 11.40 8.98 Gain on sale of bond Proceeds $97,500.00 Cost $96,000.00 Delivery Costs 31.35 96,031.35 1,468.65 293.73 0.00 293.73 Total gain on invest ment in bond $1,570.58 $ 314,11 $ 11.40 $302.71 Contentions The appellant submitted: —There was a bona fide acquisition of the said bonds. ... At the time the broker purchased the said bonds on behalf of CCIG, CCIG had a legal liability to the broker for the amount of the purchase price plus accrued interest. — Each member of the club, including the appellant, was jointly and severally liable for this obligation. ...

In filing his income tax returns for the relevant years, the appellant attempted to deduct the following amounts as a non-capital loss with respect to a payment by the appellant on a guarantee: 1974 — $ 2,460.90 1975 — 21,883.27 1975 — 4,305.08 1977 — 11,945.94 $40,595.19 The Minister categorized the loss as a net capital loss and recomputed the appellant’s income in the relevant taxation years as follows: Proceeds of Disposition Nil Adjusted Cost Base $40,595 Capital Loss $40,595 Allowable Capital Loss (50%) $20,297 Applied to 1973* $1,000 Applied to 1974 1,000 Applied to 1975 1,000 Applied to 1976 1,000 Applied to 1977 2,000 $ 6,000 Carry Forward $14,297 ‘Statute Barred. ... At the date the appellant provided the guarantee, he incurred only a contingent liability — no funds had actually changed hands. ... It is interesting to note that the evidence in this current matter shows many similarities — the building under construction by Wenfair was to be sold — not retained and rented as an investment. ...