Search - 江西农大 毛瑢

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. ...

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. ...

., Government of Canada bonds with: — serial numbers of F56 000450 and F56 000972 — combined face value $30,000 — accrued interest $977.26 — maturity date of December 15, 1975 (b) The taxpayer borrowed, from the Bank of B.C., by way of a demand promissory note, and secured by the above bonds, sufficient funds to purchase the bonds. ... In response to your letter of May 6, 1980, we confirm the following transactions relative to the subject bond purchase: November 26, 1975 Loan advanced for the purchase of Government of Canada Bonds Heather Jensen $15,495.38 Claus Jensen $30,984.01 November 27, 1975 Government of Canada Bonds (Bearer) Lodged in support of loan Heather Jensen Serial #F56 000969 #F56 000970 #F56 000971 3 @ $ 5,000.00 Claus Jensen Serial #F56 000972 #F56 000450 1 @ $ 5,000.00 1 / $25,000.00 December 15, 1975 Above bonds redeemed and loan retired from proceeds. ...

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? ...

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. ...

Taxes — $ 304.72 Insurance — 426.00 Mortgage payments — 3,758.16 (monthly payment $313.18) This represents a considerable outlay of funds bearing in mind the annual rent was a nominal $645. ... Again, 1976 is typical: STATEMENT OF FARMING INCOME 1976 WALTER’S FALLS FARM Sales and Land Rentals $ Nil Deduct: Fertilizer for Lawn $ 6.95 Rental and Repairs (chain saw) 29.40 Gasoline (auto, chain saw, tractor, mower etc.) 24.00 Hay and Feed (livestock) 1,202.70 Livestock 320.00 Tools 38.58 Hay Mowing Costs 275.00 Machinery & Tractor Costs 65.00 Hay Baling costs 196.00 Mailing, advertising, etc. 23.42 $2,181.05 Loss $2,181.05 Deduct: Municipal taxes (63.1%) $ 188.71 Mortgage Interest(63.1%) 2,208.52 Telephone 31.60 Bank service charges 6.00 Stationery 14.57 Miscellaneous 29,16 $2,478.56 Net Loss $4,659.61 STATEMENT OF RENTAL INCOME — 1976 WALTER’S FALLS FARM Rents received $ 600.00 EXPENSES: Municipal taxes (36.9%) $ 110.35 Mortgage Interest (36.9%) 1,291,52 Insurance 342.30 House repairs: — roof-eavestroughing 158.57 — windows-paint 16.20 — furnace 15.00 — materials for home 144.37 Barn repairs: — cement, mix for barn gangway 315.00 $2,393.31 Loss $1,793,31 By 1977, when he sold six of his cattle,the appellant had accumulated a herd of 14 but during the immediately subsequent years, he sold these also and finally sold the farm. ... The significant words in both quotations used by the learned Justice are the same — “start-up costs (losses)”. ...

The facts set out in paragraph 6 of the reply to the notice of appeal are admitted and read as follows: In assessing the appellant for the 1975 and 1976 taxation years, the respondent relied, inter alia, on the following presumptions of fact: (a) by notarial deed dated August 1, 1962, Dame Marguerite F Doriga ‘gave, as a trust donation to Les Fiduciares de la Cité du District de Montréal Ltée’, a number of securities, ‘securities which the Trust admits it has received and taken in trust for the following purposes: — to pay to the said Marguerite F Doriga, for the rest of her life, the income form the above-mentioned securities’; (b) during the years under dispute, the appellant resided in Canada; (c) during the entire period under dispute, Dame Marguerite F Doriga resided in Spain; (d) in accordance with the trust deed referred to in subparagraph (a) of this paragraph, during the 1975 and 1976 taxation years the appellant paid Mrs Doriga $11,744.14 and $14,512.07 respectively; (e) the appellant neglected to withhold and submit to the Receiver General, in the name of Dame Marguerite F Doriga, the amounts of $898.08 and $2,980.85 as income tax payable by the said beneficiary. ... He referred the Board to the following decisions: List of authorities A — DWN N Walters, Law of Trust in Canada, pp 4-6; B — Canadian Income Taxation of Trust. Fiscal Definition of Trust, pp 7-12; C — Quinn v Leathen, [1901] AC 495; D — J N O’Meara and others v Bennett and others, [1922] AC 80; E — Dame Eleonore Curran v Meyer Davis, [1933] S.C.R. 283; F — Laverdure v DuTremblay, [1937] AC 666; G — Guarantee Trust of New York v The King, [1947] S.C.R. 183; H — No 199 v MNR, 11 Tax ABC 353; [1954] DTC 488; I — Charles Glass Greenshields v The Queen, [1958] S.C.R. 216; J — Redford v National Trust Company and Dame Maclnness, [1968] QB 689; K — Income Tax Act, 1972, ss 483 to 523; L — Higher et al v Crown Trust Company, 5 NR 561; M — Joseph Morris v MRQ, [1975] CP 250: N — The Queen v Littler, [1978] CTC 235; 78 DTC 6179. ...

The basic amounts in question from the assessment notices were: Additional Penalty on additional Monarch Unreported income tax assessed 1974 $ 7,896.90 $ 475.65 1975 14,626.59 1,169.05 1976 2,694.89 188.65 Bereskin 1973 $ 1,804.74 $ 216.94 1974 19,633.67 3,655.53 1975 4,041.91 562.12 The appellants, in their respective Notices of Appeal, represented the problem in this way: 1. ... There was no basis presented by the appellants upon which the Minister’s assessment of tax should be disturbed — see P Rawsthorne v MNR, [1981] CTC 2187; 81 DTC 116. ...

. $1.00 $ 6.00 36,000 — class A Pfd. 1,000 1002 class B Pfd. P.V. $1.00 1,002.00 $ 1,008.00 Earned Surplus 173,767.52 174,775.52 $490,766.36 The balance sheet was audited and certified correct by Mintz and Mintz, Chartered Accountants. ... At all relevant times during the 1964 taxation year, the issued class B preferred shares were held as follows: 167 shares — Saul Mintz 167 shares — Ernest Dicker 1 share — Ettie Wosnick as nominee for Saul Mintz 1 share — Sari Dicker as nominee for Ernest Dicker 666 shares — Samuel N Shapiro (if not in his name, beneficially owned) 1002 total shares authorized and issued For several years Messrs Shapiro, Mintz and Dicker had worked closely together in directing the affairs of the appellant company and, for all practical purposes, constituted a board of directors, although-neither Mintz nor Dicker were in fact appointed directors, preferring to work through Ettie Wosnick and Sari Dicker as nominees. ...

The balance sheets for the years 1977, 1979 and 1981 show the cost of inventory, land, building relating to the farming and laboratory activities as follows: 1977 1979 1981 Farm Lab Lab Farm Lab Lab Farm Lab Lab Inventory $40,435 $ 3,200 $213,039 $ 4,500 $169,634 $ 5,600 Land 54,000 152,000 54,000 152,000 54,000 152,000 Building — — 239,984 429,216 255,287 429,216 Equipment 24,244 143,821 19,393 154,308 23,517 157,965 $118,679 $299,021 $526,416 $740,024 $502,438 $744,781 The laboratory operation of the appellant shows in 1980 and 1981 the following figures (Exhibits A-13 and A-14): 1980 1981 Revenue $913,314 $1,156,955 Net income $190,629 $ 212,488 Moreover, the evidence shows that in the same years the main shareholder of the appellant received bonuses of $150,000 in 1980 and $200,000 in 1981. ... A Well, I’ll just have to try and — you see I’ve been with him for three years and the first year l came up he had like kind of a Mickey Mouse operation. ... Pursuant to the financial statements the land on Charlotte Street is worth $122,000 ($122,000 + 7 $17,428 + $30,000 $47,428). ...