Search - 江西农大 毛瑢

. $125,000 Less principal residence 62,500 $ 62,500 Less Adjusted Cost Base $53,860 50% of outlays & expenses of $9,513.50 4,757 58,617 3,833 Less reserve 2,517 Total Capital Gain 1,366 Taxable Capital Gain $ 683 4. ... Proceeds of Sale of Black Creek Property $125,000.00 Less principal residence Land $20,000 House $17,000 37,000.00 Shed 200.00 37,200.00 $ 87,800.00 Less Adjusted Cost Base Land $50,000 50,000.00 70% of total outlays & expenses 6,659.80 56,659.80 Gain on disposition $ 31,140.20 Less Reserve 20,926.21 Total Capital Gain $ 10,213.99 Taxable Capital Gain $ 5,107.00 The question to be decided is whether the value of the appellant’s residence, shed and residential acreage is $62,500 or one-half of the total selling price of the whole property as claimed by the appellant or whether the value of the residence, shed and acreage is $37,200 claimed by the respondent. ... Allocated land $50,000 Residence $16,500 Total $66,500 In July 1,1975 the Allocated land $102,450 Residence $ 22,550 Total $125,000 In computing the capital gain realized from the disposition of the subject, the Minister used a fair market value of not less than $87,000 for the land as of August 1, 1975 allowing a value of $37,200 for the principal residence, 4 acres of land and the shed. ...

Background The appellant was employed during the relevant time by Clarkson, Gordon & Co (“Clarkson”), and/or their affiliated business operations. — He incurred automobile expenses in connection with his employment, which expenses he calculated at $713.77. — He received from his employer $420.80 calculated on the basis of the mileage travelled. — In preparing his 1977 income tax return, he deducted the difference of $292.97 from his income. ... Contentions For the appellant: — In the operation of a motor vehicle for the purposes alleged, a charge for parking is inherent in the nature of and the use of any such vehicle and its operation. ... EXPENSES DUE TO BUSINESS USE Type of Automobile—1967 Ford Fairlane—500 Miles Travelled on Business —2104 Total Miles —4570 % Business Usage 46.04% Costs— Gasoline (2104 miles) 94.33 — Business Insurance 76.00 —46.04% of Regular Insurance 49.26 —46.04% of Maintenance 35.40 —CCA—46.04%—Class 10 (30%) Averaged with 57% availability on time basis = 51.57% 90.78 — Parking—Based on 80% availability (4 out of 5 days) 368.00 Total Busines Expense 713.77 Allowance Paid by Employer 2104 miles @ $0.20 = (420.80) Net Claim For Tax Purposes $292.97 12-4-78 (Signature) Note: I maintain two automobiles, the automobile used for pleasure/personal driving is not reflected in this claim Argument Counsel for the appellant made the fundamental point that the very nature of the contract of employment with Clarkson required Price to keep an automobile “on standby” at the Winnipeg office, and that the resulting “standby” charge for parking was essentially no different than the cost of the automobile licences or insurance which would be deductible. ...

We therefore propose to adjust 1973 as follows: Gas, Insurance, Repairs Claimed $ 675.32 Rentals Claimed 520.00 $1,195.32 Allow one-half Business use 597.66 Adjustment 1973 $ 597.66 Reassessment will be deferred for fifteen (15) days to allow you an opportunity to make any representations you feel necessary. ... Proposed settlement Office Advertising Gas, Oil (Sup- Breakdown of Taxable & Promotion Rentals & Repairs plies) Benefit 21.00 11.90 20.00 8.70 3.20 Health Care 30.00 59.95 28.30 20.00 6.60 4.25 Prizes 50.00 11.45? ... 16000 “Pers 22.10 160.00 7.30 14.90 34 12 Rentals 160.00 34.12 12.75 16.65 Standby charges 360.00 8.30 12.80 520.00 502.60 Schedule of Expenses Claimed Proven Non-allowable Advertising & promotion 520.30 502.60 17.70 Rentals 520.00 — 520.00 Office 34.12 34.12 — Travel 10.00 10.00 — Accounting 20.00 20.00 — Car expenses 696.32 679.72 16.60 Personal use 10% nil (67.97) 67.97 1800.74 1178.47 622.27 Expenses disallowed previously 597.66 Additional non-allowable expenses 24.61 Solution Based on above, the taxpayer should be disallowed some additional expenses. ...

(d) during 1972 through 1976, the appellant’s sources of income were as follow: Invest Family Family Other ment Farming Allow Allow Income Loss ance ance Year Office Income $ $ $ $ 1972 Northtown Ford Sales 84,541.47 60 (11,954) 1973 Northtown Ford Sales 186,030.00 84 (114,400) 1974 Linblasco Investments Limited 267,882.46 316 (199,000) 720.00 1975 HOJ Industries Limited 553,700.23 60 2,215 794.88 836.01 1976 HOJ Industries Limited 688,540.00 124 (449,909) 795.00 (e) the appellant, during the years 1972 through 1976, at no time had invested as great an amount in his farming business compared to the amount invested in HOJ Industries Limited, as revealed by the following schedule: HOJ INDUSTRIES LTD: 1973 1973 1974 1974 1975 1975 Net assets 63,200 869,373 815,996 Net Income before Admin bonus and extraordinary item 273,992 971,475 751,784 Percent 43% 111 % 92% Net income after Admin bonus before income tax 159,621 435,224 42,927 % to net assets 25% 50%.05% FARM OPERATIONS: 1973 1973 1974 1974 1975 1975 Net Assets 421,079 538,712 844,360 % net assets farm operations to net assets HOJ Industries Limited 66.8% 61.96% 103.47% (f) the appellant had no farming experience at the time he commenced farming operations in 1972; (g) from 1972 to 1977 inclusive, the appellant invested over $1,039,880 in the operation of his farming business; this amount represented the purchase of two farms, equipment, livestock, and building contruction costs. ...

It should read as follows: Wages $15,000.00 ITD $ 3,751.40 CPP $ 120.60 UIC $ 134.68 PR Creations Unlimited Ltd was placed in receivership Oct 17/1975, and the attached T4 slip was prepared by the receiver, Mr S J Down of Thorn Riddell & Co Winnipeg. ... Yet, the Court reached the conclusion that Coopers & Lybrand had not deducted as required by subsection 153(1) of the Act. ... In Coopers & Lybrand (supra) both forms (b) & (c) showed that the deduction at issue had been made—and yet the Court did not regard that evidence as determinative. ...

The appellant is a professional engineer, practising as Gerald J Foley & Associates, Engineering and Management Consultants, c/o Gerald J Foley, 201-2727 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba. ... Location & Survey by: Mid-Canada Consultants Limited; Exhibit A-7—Plan—Dwg No 202—Proposed Mobile Home Park, City of St Vital (Prepared by Gerald J Foley & Assoc); Exhibit A-8—Plan—Proposed site for Mobile Home Sub-Division (Prepared by B J Fleishman April 6/70); Exhibit A-9—Sketch Plan—Detached Housing Complex (Prepared by Mid-Canada Consultants Ltd April 17, 1970); Exhibit A-10—Inter-departmental Memorandum dated March 5, 1970 to the Honourable Leonard S Evans, Minister of Industry & Com- merce, Manitoba, from Lome D R Dyke, Deputy Minister, Industry & Commerce, Manitoba; Exhibit A-11—Letter dated June 1, 1970 to Mr E A Levin from Northwest Design & Fabrication Limited, Winnipeg, Manitoba. ... Description Page 1 Surveyor’s sketch of land 1 2 September 23, 1969—letter from G J Foley to The Comax Corporation of Canada Ltd 1A 3 Option to Purchase dated November 12, 1969 between Victor John Mager and Gerald J Foley and Associates 2 4 Option to Purchase dated November 31, 1969 between Louis Jules Mager and Etiennette Mager, and Gerald J Foley and Associates 7 5 Prospectus proposal—Six Wheels Limited, dated December 6, 1969 14 6 November 4, 1969—letter from Neonex International Ltd to Gerald J Foley 20 7 November 10, 1969—letter from Neonex International Ltd to Gerald J Foley 21 8 June 23, 1971—memo from Gerald J Foley to Neonex International Ltd 22 9 November 25, 1969—memo from Gerald J Foley to Prospective Partners 23 10 January 21, 1970—letter from Mid-Canada Consultants Limited to Commodore Properties 26 11 February 17, 1970—letter from Brock & Brock to Gerald J Foley 27 12 June 17, 1970—letter from Rohne-Trumpour Realty Services Ltd to Gerald J Foley 28 13 Invoice dated June 26, 1970 from E Karl Farstad & Associates Ltd to Gerald J Foley 30 14 June 26, 1970—Letter from E Karl Farstad & Associates Ltd to Gerald J Foley 31 15 July 17, 1970—letter from Gerald J Foley to Comax Corporation of Canada Ltd 40 16 July 20, 1970—letter from Comax Corporation of Canada Ltd to Gerald J Foley 43 17 Offer and Acceptance dated August 1, 1970 45 18 Option to Purchase dated September 1, 1970 between Gerald John Foley and Compark Developments Ltd and Six Wheels Limited 46 19 June 19, 1970—letter from Gerald J Foley to Robbins Equipment Corp 69 20 July 2, 1970—letter from Detroiter Mobile Homes to Gerald J Foley 70 21 July 10, 1970—letter from Detroiter Mobile Homes to Gerald J Foley 71 22 July 20, 1970—letter from Detroiter Mobile Homes to Gerald J Foley 72 23 August 19, 1970—letter from Gerald J Foley to Detroiter Mobile Homes 73 24 January 2, 1971—letter from Gerald J Foley to Commodore Homes Limited 77 25 January 7, 1971—letter from Commodore Homes Limited to Gerald J Foley 79 26 January 8, 1971—letter from Gerald J Foley to Boise-Cascade of Canada Limited 80 27 June 23, 1971—memo from Gerald J Foley to Boise-Cascade of Canada Limited 82 28 June 28, 1971—letter from Boise-Cascade Mobile & Recreational Products to Gerald J Foley 83 29 January 22, 1971—letter from Gerald J Foley to Detroiter Mobile Homes 84 30 February 3, 1971—letter from Detroiter Mobile Homes to Gerald J Foley 85 31 January 22, 1971—letter from Gerald J Foley to Glendale Mobile Homes Limited 86 32 January 22, 1971—letter from Gerald J Foley to Great Northern Capital Corporation Limited 87 33 February 5, 1971—letter from Great Northern Capital Corporation Limited to Gerald J Foley 89 34 June 23, 1971—memo from Gerald J Foley to Great Northern Capital Corporation Limited 90 35 June 23, 1971—memo from Gerald J Foley to Northwest Design & Fabrication Ltd 91 36 June 24, 1971 — memo from Northwest Design & Fabrication Ltd to Gerald J Foley 92 37 June 23, 1971—memo from Gerald J Foley to Commodore Homes Limited 93 38 October 29, 1970—letter from Brock & Wyrzykowski to Gerald J Foley & Associates and attachments 94 39 April 6, 1971—letter from Brock & Wyrzykowski to Gerald J Foley 116 40 September 7, 1971—memo from Gerald J Foley to Donald C Brock 118 41 December 15, 1971—letter from Brock & Wyrzykowski to Gerald J Foley and enclosure 119 42 June 16, 1971—letter from Gerald J Foley to The Comax Corporation of Canada Limited and attachment 124 43 June 21, 1971—letter from Nozick, Akman & Associates to Brock & Wyrzykowski 127 44 September 25, 1972—letter from Gerald J Foley to Toronto-Dominion Bank 128 Argument The appellant argued that he had available to him the necessary funds for his plan, from the manufacturers of mobile homes, and that only delay and difficulty with zoning and other necessary approvals and permits prevented the fulfilment of the project. ...

The appellant’s 1975 income tax return contains financial information which is typical of that filed for all the relevant years: AMOEBA REG’D STATEMENT OF INCOME 1975 Per T-1 originally GROSS INCOME filed Innotech Sept/75 $ 75.00 Jan/75 230.00 March/75 275.00 Feb/75 490.00 $ 1,070.00 $ 1,070.00 AMOEBA ENTERPRISES INC Invoices 26,563.61 27,562.31 27,633.61 28,632.31 EXPENSES Outside consulting services 45.00 Automobile expenses 2,244.17 Insurance (50% x $55) 27.50 Interest 149.33 Rent (50% x $1,560) 780.00 Telephone 191.35 Travelling (50% = $1,080.33) 540.00 Materials and supplies 980.19 Promotion, entertaining and parking 972.25 CCA automobile 1,792.32 7,722.11 Less: Personal use of automobile 25% x $4,036.49 1,009.00 6,713.11 7,934.40 $20,920.50 $20,697.91 (The difference between the above income and expense statements is merely that, at the Notice of Objection stage, certain changes were suggested by the appellant, but they are not relevant to the points at issue in this appeal because the expense amounts disallowed by the Minister were the original amounts reported: 1974 — $3,914.56 1975 — 7,933.36 1976 — 5,802.01. ... There was no indication in the evidence that Mr Woolner’s precise or even general design and drafting functions, and the results therefrom, were dictated — or could be dictated — by Petrofina. ... I am not aware that an automobile mechanic, or a plumber for example, performing a task — in his own right and at his own discretion — becomes the employee of the payor merely because the account for the service is rendered based upon an hourly rate charged to complete it. ...

I have identified each property with a letter, given a brief description of it and its general relative position with regard to the subject property, together with the numerical identification indicating which appraiser(s) used it: 1971 Inside Date Date Price Relative Identi Town Acreage of per to Appraiser Used by fication Limits Size Sale Acre Subject 1 2 3 4 Appraisers A X 10 4/73 $ 600 NW % mile X 37 B X 160 NW 1 mile X 9/76 3500 C x 18 3/73 1915 NW % mile X X D X 5 9/73 5000 W /2 mile* XX 3 E X 2 9/73 2190 W / mile X F X 5 11/73 6000 W ’/ mile XX 3 G 219 4/72 426 SE adjacent X X 2/4 H X 70 11/69 571 NW % mile X I 70 7/72 457 E. adjacent X X 2/4 J X 20 10/70 850 NW % mile X K X 28 11/73 750 NW ’/ mile X L X 9 3/73 1235 NW % mile X M X 29 11/72 637 NW /2 mile X 4 — In or adjacent to built up areas of Brooks. ... So, at most — sorry — at best, we are dealing with an immediate need, no lots available, and of course there was a one-year supply of lots, if we believe Mr Braa’s testimony. ... Leaving these comparables (“G” and “I”) out of the reports of Pro and Zezulka indicates that in the authors’ minds, no importance whatsoever should be attached to the selling price of the properties — $426 and $457 per acre by them, at a time only months removed from V-Day — a view which I do not espouse. ...

Contentions For the appellant: — I had more than sufficient income tax deducted at the source and remitted (monthly) instead of making quarterly payments; — The department actually owes me (interest) money; — My salary is credited (to my drawings account) as at December 31 of each year. For the respondent: — In the circumstances, the appellant is required to make further payments on account of the remainder of his tax liability by way of interim instalments of tax on or before April 30, 1977; — Interest is required to be paid in respect of unpaid or tardy instalments; — For this purpose, the appellant is deemed to be liable for instalments computed on the basis of the lower of his actual tax payable for the taxation year or the preceding taxation year; — The appellant did not pay any of the instalments of tax and consequently, interest is required to be paid on the balance of tax outstanding, as well as the arrears of instalments; — Tax in the amount of $8,293.18 had not been paid by the time the statutory delay for the filing of the return of the appellant of income for the 1976 taxation year — that is April 30, 1977 — and the arrears interest in the amount of $88.61 is correctly assessed in accordance with subsection 161(1) of the Income Tax Act; — The appellant failed to pay interim instalments of his tax when due as required by subsection 156(1) of the Income Tax Act, and the instalment interest in the amount of $900.08 assessed by the respondent pursuant to subsection 161 (2) of the Income Tax Act is properly payable. ... Turning to the other point at issue — the interest on the instalments — I would note a recent decision of this Board for some general comments relevant to the question of “bonus” and “salary”: G W Dorman Pulp Chip Company Ltd v MNR, [1981] CTC 2005; 81 DTC 18. ...

Yours very truly, Dunwoody & Company Per (Signature) JDD/hb J. D. ... In this respect, the following amounts will be added to your income: 1971 — $ 6,000.00 1972 — $ 7,000.00 1973 — $12,000.00 1974 — $12,000.00 Any further action will be held in abeyance for fifteen (15) days in order to allow you time to submit any information which you would like to have considered. Yours truly, (Signature) for Chief of Audit PF:hf In addition, the following information has been extracted by the Board from the financial statements of Oil Field which have been made available in the exhibits: Manage Gross Revenue Other ment Fixed Year (Given in $) Sales Income* Fees Assets (Net) Inventory 1955 $402,402 $101,695 $ 707 $15,197 $ 36,386 (8 mos.) 1956 216,913 215,713 1,200 17,352 54,978 1957 425,404 420,695 4,709 37,932 125,124 1958 487,024 480,568 6,456 45,855 94,222 1959 505,491 498,849 6,642 51,327 93,825 1960 418,568 412,524 6,044 41,998 150,808 1961 341,853 340,101 1,752 28,637 110,969 1962 468,323 467,229 1,094 26,918 111,840 1963 421,573 416,390 5,183 46,503 84,018 1964 330,981 325,159 5,822 35,905 71,785 1965 110,701 93,505 17,196 13,597 5,758 1966 3,965 2,556 1,409 10,529 10,114 1967 10,682 6,877 3,805 10,529 3,159 1968 1,408 1,044 364 Nil 2,694 1969 (not made available) 1970 Nil Nil Nil Nil 2 1971 5,600 600 Nil $ 5,000 Nil Nil 1972 7,160 552 608 6,000 Nil Nil 1973 13,585 Nil 2,085 11,500 Nil Nil 1974 14,563 2,563 12,000 Nil Nil Other Income consisted mainly of interest earned and discounts received. ...