Search - 江苏苏美达轻纺国际贸易有限公司 关税政策 最新动态

With reference to the appellant’s appeal against the assessment of the profits which it made from the acquisition and dis- position of certain vacant lands, it appears that the appellant, which was incorporated in 1949, did acquire certain revenue producing properties which, for the purposes of this appeal it may be assumed, were acquired for the purpose of obtaining a rental revenue from them and, in addition, in 1953, it started acquiring farm properties near the Côte-de-Liesse Road on Montreal Island, some of which properties were disposed of by it in a manner that is sufficiently indicated by a statement entitled ° Reconciliation of Net Profit Re Sale of Land’’, which is attached to the notice of appeal and which reads as follows: RECONCILIATION OF NET PROFIT RE SALE OF LAND RE: EXPROPRIATION BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT— DEED 1106499 Date—Nov. 9/54 Expropriation Price $371,260.00 Cost of Land Sold—Purchased Oct. 21/52 $75,391,60 Cost of Land Sold—Purchased Oct. 31/52- 32,004.37 107,395.97 Net Profit_ $263,864.08 14 Time held re lot 525 as per deed 1106499—one year, 1 month and 28 days 44 Time held re lot 527 as per deed 1106499—one year, 2 months and 7 days RE SALE TO INNES EQUIPMENT LTD.— DEED 1109955 Date—Nov. 17/54 Selling Price — $ 50,180.20 Cost of Land Sold—Purchased Oct. 21/52 1- $ 5,206.23 Commission—Westmount Realties- 2,509.00 Notarial Fees 25.00 7,740.23 ” {.;: Net Profit — —- $. 42,439.97 Time held as per Deed 1109955—2 years, 27 days Lot 525! ... OF CANADA— DEED 1007182 Date—May 7, 1953 Selling Price. • $ 67,475.70 Cost of Land Sold—Purchased Oct. 31/52 $ 11,166.88 Commission to Morgan Realties Inc. 3,073.18 Notaries Fees-.. 75.00 Adjustment of Taxes n 24.75 16,640.41 [sic] Net Profit — ….- $ 52,835.29 Time held as per deed 1007182—6 months and 7 days: Lot 525 i RE SALE TO CANADIAN COMSTOCK CO. ... Notarial Fees — 1 250.00 36,788.49 Net Profit I $ 85,711.51 Time held as per deed 1091288—1 year, 9 months, 18 days. ...

Add: Reserve deducted under Section 85B in computing your 1961 income 15,000 The amounts of tax actually assessed against the appellant in the taxation years 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962 are identical with the amounts that would have been assessed if the respondent had in fact assessed the appellant on the basis that the appellant had adopted pursuant to Section 85B of the Income Tax Act a cash basis for computing this profit from this ‘ ‘ business ’ ’. ... The determination of this issue is dependent (i) on the true interpretation of the provisions of Section 85B(l)(b) of the Income Tax Act in relation to the question of whether the respondent may set up and employ a reserve under Section 85B(1)(d), that is, assess the appellant on the basis that the appellant adopted an accrual basis for computing profit from this business ’’ when the appellant had taken no position either in any written document delivered to the respondent or verbally as to how he wished to compute the profit from this “business”, that is, neither the position that he wished it computed by the cash method nor by the accrual method; and (ii) whether on the facts of this case this reserve of $30,000 was again deducted in 1960 by the appellant pursuant to Section 85B(1) (d) of the Income Tax Act in computing his income for the taxation year so as to avoid including it in his 1960 income pursuant to Section 85B(1)(e) of the Act. ...

The appellant sold the following number of lots in the years indicated: 1955 — 5 lots 1959 —11 lots 1956 — 23 “* 1960 — 12 °° 1957 — 18 “ 1961 — 10 “* 1958 — 10 “ 1962— 7 “ In his testimony the appellant frankly stated that it was his hope and intention to sell every lot in the subdivisions excepting his own home. ... C.R. 40; [1951] C.T.C. 322, Thorson, P. said, “... the Court must be careful before it decides that a series of profits, each one of which would by itself have been a capital gain, has become profit or gain from a business. ... It follows that the appeal is dismissed with costs. 1 * 3, The income of a taxpayer for a taxation year for the pur poses of this Part is his income for the year from all sources in side or outside Canada and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes income for the year from all (a) businesses, (b) property, and (c) offices and employments. 4. ...

Attached to the said consent was a schedule of purchases and sales of land made by the late Adolorata Fabi and entitled ‘‘ Mrs. Adolorata Fabi ’ ’. Also a second schedule, marked ‘‘ Appendix 1 ’ of purchases and sales covering four pages which were made jointly by Samuel Fabi and his mother in connection with lots 4 and 5 (Brault Farm). ...

See. 86(1) is in part as follows: * • There shall be imposed, levied and collected a consumption or sales tax of eight per cent on the sale price of all goods (a) produced or manufactured in Canada, payable by the producer or manufacturer at the time of the delivery of such goods to the purchaser thereof.’’ ... There is no particular significance in the word "‘retreading’’ and one can only say it is a very convenient and descriptive term to use, Just as the word ‘ " sole ‘ ‘ is used in respect of shoes. ... I cannot think that the words " ‘ manufacture, ‘ ‘ or ""goods,” mentioned in 87(c) include, or were intended to include, transactions of the nature which I am discussing, or that such transactions were intended to be treated as sales. ...

It defines " " capital employed in any year or fiscal period, ‘ ‘ while Section 15A is concerned with capital employed ‘ ‘ at the time of incorporation’’ and "‘prior to incorporation’’. ...

Joubin & Associates Mining Geologists Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Joubin company’’), being (a) $ 43,603.40 in respect of 1960 (b) $ 85,189.06 “ ‘* ** 1961 (c) $138,369.41 ‘6 ‘* ** 1962 are deductible in computing the appellant’s profits from its business for those respective years for the purposes of Part I of the Income Tax Act. ... In other words, the question, as I understand it, is: Is such an expenditure in substance a revenue or a capital expenditure ’ ’? ... Atherton, supra, and that had been applied by Kerwin, J., as he then was, in Montreal Light, Heat & Power Consolidated v. ...

.,• *:. ' • Copies of the actual insurance policies have not been placed before the Court but a copy of the certificate issued under the Union Mutual Group Accident Insurance Policy is attached to the special case. ... That the policy is a policy of insurance that was effected on the ‘‘life’’ of the deceased is clear from the essential nature of the contract, which is a con- tract Whereby a fixed amount is payable on the ‘death” of the deceased and an increased amount is payable at the same time if the ‘ * death ’ ’ was caused by ‘ ‘ violent and accidental ’ ’ means. ... & S. Industries Inc. v. Rowell, [1966] S.C.R. 419, per Martland, J. at page 425. 4 tI have in mind the comment of my brother Cattanach in Vaskevitch Estate v. ...

The appellant’s income tax returns show that the structure — as opposed to the contents — cost a total amount of $10,767.73. ... In due course, the tax assessors sought further information from the appellant with a view to a “ recapture ’ ’ assessment. ... It is now contended in this Court that the capital cost of the hotel — as opposed to the contents — was over $16,000. ...

See. 10 of €. 14 of 23-24 Geo. V dealing with the application of the various sections of the Act says inter alia: " ‘10. ... In common use, the word " " individual applies to either sex; as the word " " person, ‘ it may mean a woman as well as a man. ... The personal corporation, besides being controlled by an individual who resides in Canada or by such an individual and his wife or any member of his family or by any combination of them, may, according to the definition contained in para. (7) of sec. 2, be controlled by " " any other person or corporation or any combination of them on his or their behalf. ‘ ‘ The word ‘ " person ‘ ‘ for which the word "‘individual’’ has been substituted in other parts of the sentence has been left here, intentionally it may be assumed. ...