Search - 江西农大 毛瑢

Mr Frankel took the position that he did not see the draft before it was sent to the Department by Mr Foreman and that when he eventually received it he immediately reacted by denying liability for the debts of two of the corporations: Initial Investments and Proud Homes — the two inactive companies. ... On July 10, 1973 the Department received from Mr Frankel a letter as follows: I have had a discussion with my solicitor, Mr Arthur Scace of the firm of McCarthy & McCarthy in Toronto and he has asked that I send to him the mortgage that I have instructed Mr Al Foreman of Hamilton to prepare as collateral security for the reassessments by your Department of my personal tax return as well as various companies. ...

On the latter point, counsel relied on Edward Collins & Sons, Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (1924), 12 TC 773; The Naval Colliery Co, Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (1928), 12 TC 1017; and Peter Merchant, Ltd v Stedeford (HM Inspector of Taxes) (1948), 30 TC 496. He also read from Southern Railway of Peru Ltd v Owen, [1957] AC 334; James Spencer & Co v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (1950), 32 TC 111; and Federal Commissioner of Taxation v James Flood Proprietary Limited (1953), 88 CLR 492. ...

By a Notice of Determination of Loss dated February 28, 1986, in respect of ihe 1981 taxation year, and by Notices of Reassessment dated August 30, 1985, in respect of the 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984 taxation years, the Defendant disallowed the following amounts claimed by Inter-Import as part of the interest expenses incurred by it in respect of the loans: 422646 LIL Ontario Total loan Ltd, loan Total claimed 1,161,677 1,186,134 2,347,811 Total disallowed 352,685 360,110 712,795 % disallowed 30.36% 30.36% 30.36% 9. ... On December 31, 1985, the plaintiff, Border Brokers Inc., Livingston On-Line Brokerage Service Inc., Samson-Shaen & Co. ...

On the ledger sheet, at the bottom appears the following: $153,814.66 Less 1,630.00 Service Charge for 3 yrs 152,184.66 1/3 50,728.22 2/3 101,456.44 $152,184.66 Mr Wilson then confirmed that the auditor’s report which he prepared and signed and is filed as part of Exhibit 4 shows on the balance sheet a heading, Liabilities and Shareholders Equity, and for the year 1978 there is an entry Unearned Income — $101,456 which Mr Wilson indicated in common accounting parlance was a reserve. ... Wilson & inquired about his views. He said: “I don’t think it is a warranty reserve. ...

Accordingly, the equivalent percentage (60 per cent of $1,649.23 = $991.35 and 60 per cent of $2,164.61 $1,301.15) on the interest was in respect of business rental income and therefore considered an allowable deduction. ... Discussion Issue #1 — Interest Deduction: Deductions Permitted in Computing Income from Business or Property The provisions of paragraphs 18(1)(a) and 18(1)(h), subsection 20(a), and paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act are set out below: General Limitations 18. (1) in computing the income of a taxpayer from a business or property no deduction shall be made in respect of General Limitation (a) an outlay or expense except to the extent that it was made or incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income from the business or property; Personal or Living Expenses (h) personal or living expenses of the taxpayer except travelling expenses (including the entire amount expended for meals or lodging) incurred by the taxpayer while away from home in the course of carrying on his business; Deductions Permitted in Computing Income from Business or Property 20. (1) Notwithstanding paragraphs 18(1)(a), (b) and (h), in computing a taxpayer's income for a taxation year from a business or property, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as are wholly applicable to that source or such part of the following amounts as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto: Interest (c) an amount paid in the year or payable in respect of the year (depending upon the method regularly followed by the taxpayer in computing his income), pursuant to a legal obligation to pay interest on (i) borrowed money used for the purpose of earning income from a business or property (other than borrowed money used to acquire property the income from which would be exempt or to acquire a life insurance policy), (ii) an amount payable for property acquired for the purpose of gaining or producing income therefrom or for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business (other than property the income from which would be exempt or property that is an interest in a life insurance policy), or (iii) an amount paid to the taxpayer under (A) an Appropriation Act and on terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board for the purpose of advancing or sustaining the technological capability of Canadian manufacturing or other industry, or (B) the Northern Mineral Exploration Assistance Regulations made under an Appropriation Act that provides for payments in respect of the Northern Mineral Grants Program or a reasonable amount in respect thereof, whichever is the lesser; Purpose Parliament created subparagraph 20(1)(c)(i), and made it operate notwithstanding paragraph 18(1)(b), in order to encourage the accumulation of capital which would produce taxable income. ...

It also agreed, in computing profit from its business for the year, “... profit must be determined on ordinary commercial principles unless the provisions of the Income Tax Act require a departure from such principles/': Dominion Taxicab Association v MNR, [1954] S.C.R. 82, at 85; [1954] CTC 34 at 37. ... He gave a number of examples where there were important differences between income, calculated in accordance with gaap, and income, calculated for tax purposes — differences permitted by the statute. ...

[Emphasis added] The classic, objective test for establishing the line of demarcation between capital and income is stated in Californian Copper Syndicate Ltd v Harris (1904), 5 TC 159 at 166: What is the line which separates the two classes of cases may be difficult to define, and each case must be considered according to its facts; the question to be determined being — Is the sum of gain that has been made a mere enhancement of value by realizing a security, or is it a gain made in an operation of business in carrying out a scheme for profit-making? ... See Hiwako Investments Ltd v The Queen, [1978] CTC 378; 78 DTC 6281 and S & S Properties Ltd v The Queen, [1978] CTC 412; 78 DTC 6294. ...

For the purposes of this Act, (a) a taxpayer’s taxable capital gain for a taxation year from the disposition of any property is % of his capital gain for the year from the disposition of that property; Subparagraph 40(1)(a) defines gain as the proceeds of disposition, General rules (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Part (a) a taxpayer’s gain for a taxation year from the disposition of any property is the amount, if any, by which (i) if the property was disposed of in the year, the amount, if any, by which his proceeds of disposition exceeds the aggregate of the adjusted cost base to him of the property immediately before the disposition and any outlays and expenses to the extent that they were made or incurred by him for the purposes of making the disposition, Paragraph 54(a) provides for the general rules governing “adjusted cost base”: (a) “Adjusted cost base”. ... I therefore refer the matter back to the Minister for consideration and reassessment, pursuant to section 177 of the Income Tax Act, and to look to exhibit 3, one of the agreed statement of facts, which outlines the calculations which were agreed to by the parties at the outset. 1 *Paragraph 18(1)(h) Personal or living expenses. — personal or living expenses of the taxpayer except travelling expenses (including the entire amount expended for meals and lodging) incurred by the taxpayer while away from home in the course of carrying on his business; ...

Jeanette Denis & George Denis v. M.N.R., appeals 87-962 (I.T.)/87-963 (1.T.), unreported decision of the Hon. ... There exists, as was decided by Chief Judge Couture, of the Tax Court of Canada in the reported case of Fancy & Fancy v. ...

The facts leading to the present notice of motion are the following: That on or about June 10, 1992, a client of the applicant, the applicant being a barrister & solicitor, a certain Mr. ... The Queen, [1981] C.T.C. 380, 81 D.T.C. 5295 (F.C.T.D.), in speaking of trust account records of a lawyer, states at page 388 (D.T.C. 5300) [that] “[t]rust account records are, undoubtedly, accounting records of a lawyer”, and at page 388 and 389 (D.T.C. 5301): I note that the present version of subsection 126(1) (now subsection 231(1)) simply reads: where ”... any books or records are or should be kept...”. ...