Search - 江西农大 毛瑢

The other amounts were included in the appellant’s revenue when he filed his 1974 income tax return. a) une semaine de vacances qui n’a pas été prise en 1972: $ 390.00 b) préavis de trois mois pour mettre fin au contrat: 4,680.00 c) douze fois le salaire mensuel prévu au contrat au moment du congédiement: 18,720.00 d) 4% du salaire gagné du 1er mai 1972 au 10 mars 1973 (45 semaines à $390.00-4% de $17,550.00) 702.00 e) contribution de la demanderesse au fonds de pension du défendeur en excédant de ce qui a déjà été payé: 12,635.22 f) indemnité de départ suivant la clause 4 de l’exhibit D-5, soit 5% du revenu net de la demanderesse: 5,126.27 le tout formant un grand total de: $42,253.49 3.9 Concerning the amount of $25, 000 for damages claimed. the judgment reads: Le défendeur, dans sa demande reconventionnelle, réclame une somme additionnelle de $25,000 à titre de dommages, alléguant que la demanderesse a porté atteinte à son intégrité personnelle et à sa réputation. ... Law — Judgments — Comments 4.1 Subsection 6(3) of the Income Tax Act, SC 1970-71-72, c 63, as amended, is the main section which is implied in the case at bar. ...

Contentions For the appellant: — he was a non-resident of Canada during the years in question; — he was a resident of Ireland during the same period, and is exempt from tax according to the Canada-Ireland Income Tax Agreement Act, 1967 (the “Agreement” or the “Convention”); For the respondent: —the appellant was not at any time material a resident of Ireland and the “Agreement” is of no assistance to him. Evidence The salient points brought out in examination and cross-examination of the appellant were: — he lived in Canada from 1930 until 1973; — in 1973, he accepted his first overseas engagement, which happened to be also in Ireland; — he is married, with two children, the family address as shown on his tax returns is where his wife resides; one child is now grown up and at university, the other is still at home; — he stayed in Ireland from August 1973 until late in 1974; — he returned to Ireland with a separate contract in May of 1975, on a three-year working permit, and returned to Canada only once for a ten- day Christmas holiday between that date and May of 1978; — his wife has her own career and remained in Canada, but visited him in Ireland frequently; — his pay was deposited in a Canadian bank, on which both his wife and himself had signing authority. He received a slip in Ireland from the Company, notifying him of the bank deposit; — he lived in rented accommodation in Ireland; —after a short stay in Canada in 1978, he obtained his new contract with a different employer, to work in Brazil; — he has a Canadian passport; — he could not apply for an Irish passport unless and until he had lived there for five years; — his contract with the Company was to get a new mine into operation, not to work after that in the mine; — his wife sent him funds from the joint bank account when it was required; —the family home is held in joint ownership with his wife; — he has maintained a Canadian driver’s licence, but does not own a car; — his medical insurance is carried on his wife’s policy; — he had no house furnishings or other tangible assets in Ireland; — he paid no income tax in Ireland; —the Company had made the arrangements for his working visa in Ireland; — he continued to pay Canadian union dues during the time material; — he did not join a union in Ireland. ...

That sum of $10,000, if there had been children — there are none — but it could go to the lady’s heirs.She could remarry, she could perhaps, she has relatives; now, that sum — and this was the argument made in Veliotis — alimony is something connected with a person and it can cease. ... When he says that that seems to be a complete settlement and so on, I should like to make clear here that I reaffirmed in my evidence that in Our marriage contract there was in fact $6,000 allocated for furniture and all that, and that is an agreement — clearly, even if it’s written, it’s an agreement — that I think anybody would make on getting married so as not to leave the spouse with financial problems in case of death; she would have debts to pay, even if it’s only the funeral expenses so that there was a gift made in contemplation of death for $10,000. ... What is more, since the fact remains that for the years in question, you still have to realize, the person was not in a normal state — and talking of nervous depression, when he says, the other side says that there is no connection, then, let us go back to four months previously, to the month of October 1976; between October and January, about four or five months. ...

Balance of Second Mortgage taken back on Sale which is outstanding —• at June 30, 1966 $135,500.00 — at June 30, 1967 $132,000.00 D. Section 85B Reserve Allowable — at June 30, 1966 $128,518.36 (gross profit) 35,500 (balance $200,500.00 second 9 g) $86,854.18 — at June 30, 1967 $128,518.36 (gross profit) $132000 (balance of second mortgage) $84,610.07 $200,500.00 (equity) mortgage) The appellant did not appeal the 1966 assessment but, in computing its income for the taxation year 1967, it brought back into income the amount of the previous year’s reserve. In reassessing the appellant for its 1967 taxation year the respondent made the following adjustments: Net Income previously assessed $29,803.27 Deduct: Prior adjustment re Section 85B Reserve $25,000.00 $ 4,803.27 Add: Section 85B Reserve adjustment now allowed Balance June 30, 1966 $86,854.18 Balance June 30, 1967 $84,610.07 Amount of reserve realized in 1967 $ 2,244,11 Revised Net Income Assessed $ 7,047.38 In so re-assessing the appellant, the Minister has allowed as a reserve the sum of $84,610.07. ...

Act — Case Law — Comments 4.1 Act The sections of the Income Tax Act involved in the case at bar are 5, 6 and 8. ... The Board concludes therefore that the entire $840 must be included in the appellant’s income. 4.3.2 Expenses of $393 — With regard to the expenses of $393 proved by the respondent, the Board notes that these were not ordinary expenses, because the appellant had broken ranks with the executive on policy and because he had even handed in his resignation. ...

Jacot’s understanding of the arrangement was that profits would be divided on a 50/50 basis with the appellant — if there had been profits. ... The appellant’s contention is that this was a venture in the nature of trade — a business — that the 1% return from MPIM was the potential source of earning to which he can point. ... It is quite possible to believe that the Minister would have regarded the 1% return to the appellant as a gain or profit from the sale of a property — a return on the disposition of an asset acquired for the sole purpose of sale — a business purpose clearly. ...

The facts are not in dispute 3.01 The appellant is a corporation whose main objects are the manufacture of generators, and the conversion, sale and repair of Diesel motors. 3.02 In 1973, the appellant planned to acquire a piece of land for the construction of a building, to relocate and to purchase machinery and equipment. 3.03 On September 12, 1972, the appellant applied for financial assistance to the Quebec Industrial Development Corporation (QIDC) under the Quebec Industrial Development Assistance Act (Exhibit A-1). 3.04 On or about June 20, 1973, the QIDC sent the appellant an offer of financial assistance, as appears from the document filed as Exhibit A-2. 3.05 The QIDC’s offer of June 20, 1973 was based on the following invest ment plan: acquisition of land $121,000 construction of a building $675,000 relocation $ 58,500 purchase of machinery and equipment 89,200 $943,700 3.06 On or about June 27, 1973, the QIDC’s offer was accepted by the appellant, as appears from the document dated June 20,1973 which is filed as Exhibit A-2. 3.07 On or about December 14, 1973, the QIDC informed the appellant that the amendments to the offer of financial assistance dated June 20, 1973 were approved, as appears from the document filed as Exhibit A-3. 3.08 On or about February 14, 1974, the QIDC entered into an agreement with the appellant, as appears from the document filed as Exhibit A-4; the said agreement came into force on June 13, 1973. 3.09 The QIDC’s assistance was calculated in terms of a loan of $700,000 which the appellant contracted with the Canadian National Bank with interest of 9 from July 1, 1973. 3.10 The actual cost of the project as of October 31, 1974 was the follow- ing: Purchase of land $ 90,985 Construction 1973 $451,747 1974 734,074 $1,185,821 Machinery and Equipment 1973 52,986 1974 66,359 119,345 $1,396,151 3.11 For the 1973 and 1974 years in question, the financial years of the appellant were from November 1,1972 to October 31,1973 and from November 1, 1973 to October 31, 1974 respectively. 3.12 The nature of the QIDC’s assistance to the appellant is set out in clause 3.00 of the agreement (Exhibit A-4), which reads as follows: The Corporation agrees to assume part of the cost of the above-mentioned loan equal to the lesser of the following two amounts: forty per cent (40%) of the annual interest paid on the said loan or the amounts set out in the table which appears in clause 3.01 hereinafter. ... The total amount of the QIDC’s assistance was not to exceed $134,100, as the amount determined for each year including 1974 and 1975 was only approximate. 3.13 Clause 5.00 of the agreement (Exhibit A-4) reads as follows: The Company must submit a claim accompanied by supporting documents no later than January 31 of each year, indicating the amount of interest paid or then owing on the loan and an auditor’s certificate relating thereto, the whole to the Corporation’s satisfaction. 3.14 On January 31, 1974, through its auditors Boulanger, Fortier, Rondeau & Co, the appellant sent the QIDC the claim in accordance with clause 5.00 cited above. The document indicates that the interest accrued and paid up to December 31, 1973 amounts to $16,005.78. 3.15 On April 5, 1974, in filing its income tax return for the 1973 taxation year, the appellant claimed a deduction for interest in the amount of $6,413 with respect to a loan which it contracted to carry out an investment project. 3.16 This accrued interest in the amount of $6,413 covered the period from July 1, 1973 to October 31, 1973. 3.17 On April 21, 1975, in filing its income tax return for the 1974 taxation year, the appellant claimed a deduction for interest in the amount of $100,438.25 with respect to a loan which it contracted to carry out the same investment project. 3.18 This accrued interest in the amount of $100,438.25 covered the period from November 1, 1973 to October 31, 1974. 3.19 During 1973, the appellant did not receive any assistance from the QIDC. 3.20 During the 1974 taxation year, the appellant received a payment of $6,402 from the QIDC, representing 40% of the cost of the loan in the amount of $16,005 for the period from July 1, 1973 to December 31, 1973. 3.21 The amount of $6,402 received from the QIDC was allocated as follows by the appellant in its financial statements and tax return (Canada) for 1974: — Land: N/A — Building: cat 3 $5,249 — Machinery and equipment: cat 29 $1,153 $6,402 B. ...

However, Mr Panchyshyn qualified the above evidence later by stating — “I’m under oath and I just can’t swear that it was $48,000”. ... He further testified, as follows: that — I wanted to take Alec along just for — so that he would hear what Mr Brooks had to say, how much I! ... In fact it is difficult to sell land at the present time — at any price. ...

In reply, it was the position of the respondent that: — the amounts in question had not been repaid within one year; — no arrangements, bona fide or otherwise, were made for repayment of the loan at the time the loan was made, or at any time, for repayment within a reasonable time. ... The response of counsel for the respondent was simple and direct — the “factory loan” was just that — a “loan” — it was not a “payment” that fell within the ambit of paragraph 15(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. ...

The respondent calculated that the $240,000 received by Mr Salt from Dominion should be allocated as follows: Lot 1, Plan 14167—98,925 sq ft x $.6496 = $ 64,260 Lot 9, Plan 2347—140,916 sq ft x $.6496 = 91,540 Lots 7 and 8, Plan 2347 (remainder) 84,200 $240,000 The respondent computed the V-Day value of Lots 1 and 9 as $46,530 and $48,502 respectively. ... Sale Price— May 1972 $330,000 General appreciation—December 31, 1971 to May 18, 1972—3.2$ per square foot per month. 4 months—12.8$ per square foot. 338,491 x 12.8$—Capital Gain $ 43,384 MARKETVALUEASOF DECEMBER 31,1971 $286,616 The evidence of Mr Koeper, Assistant Area General Manager of General Appraisal Company of Pasadena, California, as to the value of the Howlett and Jamieson lands is also difficult to accept, having regard to the post July 1971 transactions referred to above. ...