Search - 江苏苏美达轻纺国际贸易有限公司 关税政策 最新动态

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. ...

According to the appellant, he would have had to have 2 “Chevettes” to cover the distance he did. 3.12 According to the appellant’s tax returns, his net income was as follows: 1971 nil 1972 $ 242.00 1973 $3,268.92 1974 $2,288.24 1971 $ 521.25 1972 $3,186.14 1973 $2,714.54 1974 $4,050.88 3.13 His wife, until her death in 1973, worked and helped the appellant with common expenses. ... Because of the reasons given, the Board considers the following figures reasonable: 1972 1973 1973 1974 1974 Living expenses $5,100 $5,100 $5,100 Entertainment allowance $ 900 $1,080 $1,250 Car expenses: gasoline $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 maintenance $ 750 $ 750 $ 750 depreciation nil $1,950 $1,365 4.6 If the taxpayer had collected all his supporting documents, he would probably have arrived at these figures. ... Therefore, the Board feels that it is fair to reduce the expenses by 50% (the case cited above reduced it by 70%). 4.7 Whereas the claimed expenses were considered excessive in the following amounts: 1972 1973 1973 1974 1974 Living expenses $1,620 $2,150 $2,400 Entertainment allowance $ 600 $.720 $ 750 Car expenses: gasoline $ 642 $1,065 $1,450 maintenance $ 450 $ 750 $1,050 Whereas 50% of the expenses considered reasonable, allowed above, equals approximately 30% of the total expenses, and this was allowed by the respondent; the Board accordingly concludes that there is no reason to change the notices of reassessment established by the respondent. 5. ...

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? ...

Sale Location Location Sale Sale Lot Lot Selling # Date Date Size Size Price St Vincent Township 1 Part Lot 3, Cone. 1 1970.46 acres $ 2,995 2 Part Lot 3, Cone. 1 1970.46 acres $ 2,695 3 Part Lot 10, Cone. 1 1970.05 acres $ 3,320 4 Part Lot 10, Cone. 2 1971.05 acres $ 3,100 5 Part Lot 10, Cone. 2 1970.46 acres $ 2,845 6 Part Lot 10, Cone. 2 1970.68 acres $ 2,695 7 Part Lot 10, Cone. 2 1972 2 acres $10,000 8 Part Lot 11, Cone. 2 1970.09 acres $ 2,500 9 Part Lot 11, Cone. 2 1969.09 acres $ 2,000 10 Part Lot 11, Cone. 3 1972.67 acres $ 7,750 11 Part Lot 11, Cone. 3 1973.67 acres $ 8,500 12 Part Lot 2, Cone. 4 1969 1.03 acres $ 2,500 13 Part Lot 10, Cone. 5 1969.57 acres $ 2,700 14 Part Lot 10, Cone. 5 1970.57 acres $ 2,700 VALUATION Sale Location Location Sale Lot Lot Selling Date Size Size Price 15 Part Lot 18, Cone. 11 1970.46 acres $ 2,000 16 Collingwood Twp. 1971 1.67 acres $ 5,000 17 Collingwood Twp. 1971 1 acre $ 6,000 18 Collingwood Twp. 1970.96 acres $ 5,300 19 Collingwood Twp. 1972.09 acres $ 7,500 20 Collingwood Twp. 1970.84 acres $ 3,695 21 Collingwood Twp. 1972.84 acres $ 5,500 22 Collingwood Twp. 1972 1.36 acres $ 6,000 The above referenced sales represent vacant residential building lots located throughout St Vincent Township, as well as the north end of Collingwood Township. ... Lots 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 36 1 4,500.00 per Lot or: 8 Lots @ 4,500.00 $ 36,000 Lots 1-5, 15, 17-19, 24-31, 33-35, 37-40 $ 3,500.00 per Lot, or: 24 Lots @ 13,500.00 $ 84,000 TOTAL $120,000 Respectfully submitted, D W Egerton, A.I.M.A., A.A.C.I. ... I should here like to cite Exhibit A-12 which was filed by the appellant which clearly sets forth the Revenue Canada V-Day values, Mr Egerton’s V-Day values and the year and price each lot was sold: ELWOOD F HOLMES — TAX APPEAL Lot Sales Revenue Canada Egerton Year Sold Reassessed V-Day Values V-Day Values Sale Price 1 $ 690 $ 3,500 76/$20,000 2 690 3,500 77/11,000 4 690 3,500 75.$10,000 5 690 3,500 74/$7,500 6 $1,790 4,500 74/$4,500 12 3,499 4,500 74/$4,500 13 3,499 4,500 74/$5,000 15 576 3,500 74/$4,500 17 576 3,500 75/$8,000 18 576 3,500 75/$10,000 19 576 3,500 77/$10,000 25 1,544 3,500 76/$11,00 26 1,554 3,500 77/$11,000 30 1,140 3,500 76/$11,000 31 1,140 3,500 76/$10,000 33 1,448 3,500 74/$5,000 34 1,448 3,500 74/$5,000 35 1,538 3,500 74/$5,000 36 3,890 4,500 74/$5,000 37 1,440 3,500 74/$5,000 38 1,440 3,500 74/$5,000 39 1,440 3,500 74/$6,000 40 1,440 3,500 74/$6,000 Totals 23 lots $33,324 $84,500 $169,000 Average Value per Lot $ 1,449 $ 3,674 Average Sale Prices per Lot: 1974 (13 lots ★ $68,000) $ 5,231 1975 (3 lots ★ $28,000) $ 9,333 1976 (4 lots ★ $41,000) $10,250 1977 (3 lots * $37,000) $10,667 Notes: 1. ...

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. ...

In his income tax return for the relevant taxation years, the Appellant declares the following employment income and professional income: Employment Professional Income Income 1972 $24,448 — 1973 $16,917 $ 3,036 1974 $19,893 $ 3,323 1975 $22,919 $11,034 3. ... In computing his income for the relevant taxation years, the Appellant claimed to deduct the following amounts as alimony or other allowance payable on a periodic basis for the maintenance of his wife and children: 1972 $ 9,397.52 1973 $ 5,201.15 1974 $ 7,906.42 1975 $11,208.93 5. ... The Appellant also purportedly paid to his wife’s creditors the following amounts in respect of specific actual expenses including rent, light, heat and water, medical expenses, education and income taxes; 1972 $ 9,397.52 1973 $ 5,201.15 1974 $ 7,906.42 1975 $11,208.93 (B) STATUTORY DISPOSITIONS AND REASONS: 7. ...

The impact of losses claimed had the following results in respect of the profit for the year ended March 31, 1967: Rental income — $27,790.00 Sundry expenses — 17,405.84 Net profit before depreciation — 10,384.16 Terminal loss — 28,105.97 Net loss for the year — $17,721.81 The appellant allocated the proceeds of sale of the shopping centre between depreciable and non-depreciable assets as follows: Land Blacktop Buildings Total Capital Cost $30,000.00 $2,000.00 $ 68,000.00 $100,000.00 Additions — 5,992.40 61,363.57 67,355.97 30,000.00 7,992.40 129,363.57 167,355.97 Net Proceeds 57,000.00 7,125.00 102,125.00 166,250.00 Terminal loss/ Capital Gain $27,000.00 $ 867.40 $ 27,238.57 $ 1,105.97 Mr Schaff appeared to be an unsophisticated businessman who bought a shopping centre which he thought he could handle as an investment. ... An index of schedules (Exhibit A-13) shows the legend of properties and projects: LEGEND OF PROJECTS AND PROPERTIES (A) Northwoods Subdivision — 98 houses — north side Sheppard Ave between Keele and Jane (B) Downsview Subdivision — 16 houses — Jane and Sheppard area (C) Islington Acres —518 houses — Finch west of Weston Road (D) Lawrence Terrace Apartments —410 suites — 1440 and 1442 Law- rence Ave West at Keele St (E) Sheppard Gardens Maisonettes —148 units —north side of Shep- pard Ave between Keele and Jane (F) Factory — 2400 Finch Ave West—169,000 Square Feet (G) Claxton Gates Apartments —175 suites —111 Raglan Ave (H) Lawrence Park Apartments —346 suites — 1577 Lawrence Ave W (1) Van Lee Apartments —207 suites — McCowan Rd north of Eglinton (J) Factory — 2420 Finch Ave W — 29,000 Square Feet (K) 2246 Keele Street — 22 suites (L) 2417 Keele Street — 11 suites (M) Farnham Court Apartments — 92 suites — Farnham and Yonge St (N)(O) 467 Roncesvalles and 54 Raglan — 32 suites (P) 34-42 Maitland Ave — 52 suites (Q) 5320-24 Yonge Street — Stores with office space and apartments on second floor (R) Lawrence and Susan —225 suites — Lawrence Ave East Apartments at Susan (S) Islington Avenue — 28 houses Schedule #1 attached to the above-mentioned Exhibit A-13 gives a summary of operations—sales of serviced lots and construction and sale of residential housing—and we can see the net proceeds on operations and the total proceeds available for investment. ... In James Hobson & Sons, Ltd v Newall (HM Inspector of Taxes), 37 TC 609, Harman, J said at page 615: This is another of these cases about builders. ...

The partnership of Roux, Morin and Langlois in addition had four full- time employees at December 31, 1972: — Mrs Yolande Capobianco, a secretary with the firm since 1964; — Mr Jean Daigneault, an architectural draftsman with the firm since 1962; — Mr Joseph Fiore, an architectural draftsman with the firm since 1957; — Mr Serge Perras, an architectural draftsman with the firm since 1964; 6. ... The Montreal partnership had a diverse clientele, primarily composed of: — school boards, — cities and towns, — religious orders, — private and public corporations, — individuals and — promoters. 11. ... Both calculations (either before or after taxes) give a minimum figure of $159,000. 4.4.3 Current Contracts Method It was explained, using the books with $388,000 worth of orders (contracts signed before December 31, 1972, but not begun or not completed) that an architect who took two years to complete these contracts would realize net profits of $183,000: — gross fees $388,000 — operating costs (40 per cent) 155,000 — net profits before architect’s salary $233,000 — architect’s salary for two years 50,000 — net profits $183,000 Hence this figure of $183,000 only represents current contracts, and does not take into account other intangible assets existing in the partnership. ...

(f) In the course of auditing the appellant’s expenses for his 1973 taxation year, the respondent noted that the amounts claimed by him in respect of gasoline, oil, diesel, maintenance, repair and tire expenses were greater than the amounts computed from the receipts submitted by the appellant’s suppliers. $ 7,832.13 Gasoline, oil, diesel $ 6,366.70 Maintenance and repairs $ 1,292.10 Tires $15,490.93 (g) As a result of the audit of the appellant’s income and expenses for his 1973 taxation year the respondent added the following amounts to the appellant’s previously reported net income of $4,999: $11,891.25 $ 989.62 $ 3,114.00 $15,995.00 (h) In the course of auditing the appellant’s income for his 1974 taxation year, the respondent noted that he had failed to include the following amounts in his income: $5,726.63 Eastern Waste Paper Ltd $2,987.48 Other unreported income (income reconciliation) (i) In the course of auditing the appellant’s expenses for his 1974 taxation year, the respondent noted that the amounts claimed by him in respect of gasoline, oil, diesel, maintenance, repair and tire expenses were less than the amounts computed from the receipts submitted by the appellant’s suppliers. The respondent therefore increased the expenses initially claimed by the appellant. $10,326.42 Gasoline, oil, diesel $12,126.96 Maintenance and repairs $ 3,102.37 Tires (j) As a result of the audit of the appellant’s income and expenses for his 1974 taxation year, the respondent added the following amounts to the appellant’s previously reported net income of $6,455: $5,726.63 $2,987.48 ($3,582.00) $5,132.11 (k) In the course of auditing the appellant’s income for his 1975 taxation year, the respondent noted that he had failed to include the following amounts in his income: $3,998.05 Eastern Waste Paper Ltd ($2,443.72) Income reconciliation $1,554.33 (l) In the course of auditing the appellant’s expenses for his 1975 taxation year, the respondent noted that the amounts claimed by him in respect of gasoline, oil, diesel, maintenance, repair and tire expenses were greater than the amounts computed from the receipts submitted by the appellant’s suppliers. $ 9,867.26 Gasoline, oil, diesel $12,543.88 Maintenance and repairs $ 3,896.25 Tires The respondent also noted that the amounts claimed by the appellant for dumping expenses were greater than the amounts computed from receipts submitted by the municipality of Lac St-Charles, the operator of the dump. $5,500 Expenses claimed $1,287 Vouchers $1,500 Expenses allowed $4,000 Difference (m) As a result of the audit of the appellant’s income and expense for his 1975 taxation year, the respondent added the following amounts to the appellant’s previously reported total income of $7,500: $ 1,554.33 $ 4,000.00 $ 5,945.61 $11,499.94 (n) During the taxation years in question, the appellant had maintained no accounting records of his business income and expenses. ... (p) As shown by the following schedule, the difference between the income reported by the appellant for his 1973, 1974, and 1975 taxation years and the income later assessed by the respondent is substantial: Income Income Reported Assessed Difference 1973 $4,999.00 $20,994.00 $15,995.00 1974 $6,455.00 $11,587.11 $ 5,132.11 1975 $7,500.00 $18,999.94 $11,499.94 In my view, the respondent has proved all the statements made in his reply to the notice of appeal. ...

For the years under appeal the appellant reported the following net income from the business: 1965 — $2,677.64 1966 — 2,350.49 1967 — 6,491.40 Upon investigation, the Minister discovered unreported receipts from charge sales in the following substantial amounts: 1965 — $5,676.10 1966 — 13,650.84 1967 — 13,527.69 At the hearing the appellant did not dispute these figures but contended that she had supplied her bookkeeper with ail the information necessary to enable him to prepare a correct return; that she had only a limited education and very little business experience and therefore could not be expected to check or query the returns prepared by her bookkeeper. ...