Search - 江西农大 毛瑢

., \ Hence, although PCI remains a distinct legal entity with a board of directors, it now employs only two persons, and they will be invited to contribute to the pension;fund of the parent company, QTC. ... We should, nevertheless, outline for you the procedure we intend to follow: — liquidate the pension fund on November 30, 1973; — calculate the units representing the employer’s and the employee’s shares for each member to this date; the employer’s share which had been allocated to members who had left the company and had cashed in their units would be allocated in proportion to the number of. units held by each current unit holder; — send a notice to each member informing him that the pension fund has been liquidated and that the units allocated to him have been transferred into an individual retirement savings plan, invested in Mutual Fund A, that is, into the same investment vehicle; The QTC will nevertheless take the appropriate action to comply with the section pertaining to deferred annuities for employees who were forty-five years of age and had made contribution for ten years when they quit PCI (this section only affects about forty-five members). — have each member complete a copy of Form TD2. ... Payments out of pension funds, etc (1) In the case of (a) a single payment (i) out of or pursuant to a superannuation or pension fund or plan the payment or payments made in a taxation year ending after 1971 and before 1974 may, at the option of the taxpayer by whom it is or they are received, be deemed not to be income of the taxpayer for the purpose of part I of the amended Act, in which case the taxpayer shall pay, in addition to any other tax payable for the year, a tax on the payment or aggregate of the payments equal to the proportion thereof that (d) the aggregate of the taxes otherwise payable by the employee under that part for the 3 years immediately preceding the taxation year (before making any deduction under section 120, 121 or 126 of the amended Act), is of (e) the aggregate of the employee’s income for those 3 years. 4.2 One fact is clear — a payment of $9,297.53 was received in 1974. ...

Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Contract for Part-Time Teaching was an employment contract, and that in addition to the Sim case (supra), the Board should consider the following: H Lionel Rosen v The Queen, [1976] CTC 462; 76 DTC 6274; Donald B MacDonald v MNR, [1974] CTC 2204; 74 DTC 1161; Dr W H Alexander v MNR, [1970] Ex CR 139; [1969] CTC 715; 70 DTC 6006; Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security, [1968] 3 All ER 732: Stevenson Jordan & Harrison Ltd v MacDonald and Evans, [1952] 1 TLR 101; Morren v Swinton & Pendlebury Borough Council, [1965] 2 All ER 349. ...

We were told at the beginning of each year that on the basis of what we propose would be the amount of our business for that year, that they would automatically make available to us — for our customers and for us to attend and look after those customers — so many trips. ...

The cases of the other tenants were settled out of court. 4.14 According to the statement of income and expenditure for the period from August 1, 1972 to July 31, 1973, (Exhibit A-12) and from August 1, 1973 to July 31, 1974 (Exhibit A-13), the following data appear: 1972-73 1973-74 Income $292,924.56 $303,364.63 Expenditure $328,786.03 $312,750.03 Deficit before amortization $ 35,861.97 $ 9,385.40 4.15 From 1972 to 1973, the cost of electricity increased 18.5% (Exhibit A-15). ... S & S Properties Ltd v The Queen, [1978] CTC 412; 78 DTC 6294; 3. ... The appellantvendor still had to pay a $110,000 commission (para 4.27) to the agent Ahern, de Brabant, Nuss & Drymer, in trust, the same agent who had the $50,000 deposit. ...

Contentions For the appellant: — During the relevant years, Emery was in the midst of divorce proceedings requiring financial settlements, and for security placed the property in the Company name in trust rather than taking it in his own name originally. For the respondent: —A non-arm’s length capital dispostion of the house occurred on December 31, 1974; — Between May 1972 and December 1974 Pleasure Valley was the registered owner of the house; — No trust agreement or other arrangement was entered into by the appellant prior to the Pleasure Valley acquiring the house; — Regardless of the intentions of the appellant, Pleasure Valley was the owner of the house, having acquired legal title, received rent from the appellant, entered the cost of the house on its books, and responsibility for payments of taxes, property assessments, etc. ...

Act — case law — analysis 4.01 Act The principal provisions of the Income Tax Act at issue are 9(1), 12(1)(e), 20(1)(n) and 248(1), the definition of “business”. ... MNR v Muzly Lawee & Naima E Lawee, [1972] CTC 359; 72 DTC 6342; 2. ...

Act — case law — analysis 4.01 Act The main provisions of the Income Tax Act that apply in the instant case are sections 3, 9, subsections 74(5) and 103(1). ... Robert Porter & Sons Limited v J H Armstrong and William Wash- brough Foster, [1926] S.C.R. 328; 6. ...

The law of contract imposes an obligation on each of the contracting parties to a legally enforceable contract — here it was the agreement between the Bohun Brothers and Reynolds — to keep faith with one another and there is no reason whatsoever, in my view, why that agreement should not be interpreted and enforced precisely in accordance with its terms. ... In precipitating the present confrontation with the Minister — which is precisely what the three appeals herein add up to — Reynolds has committed a serious breach of its agreement (contract) dated July 13, 1965 with Peter Bohun and Dick Bohun which has most unfortunately involved them in unnecessary expenses in sticking up for their rights under the said agreement. 5. ... Paragraph 20(6)(g) is a rule — quoting from page 20-610 of the Canada Tax Service — “designed to cover the situation where a lump sum consideration is received in respect of the disposition of depreciable property of a prescribed class and for other assets such as depreciable property of some other class, or for goodwill or land.... ...

The $16,000 which each received was capital in her hands in place of the original capital asset — the 4 acres of land — which she had previously owned. ...

For the appellant’s residence: (a) heating $ 445.81 565.56 (b) electricity $ 566.58 377.72 2. Other expenses $ 157.55 1,091.49 3. Salary and materials (a) basement of the appellant’s residence $ 733.00 1,617.80 (b) Rochette house $5,498.00 17,260.28 In addition, penalties were imposed for the said years in the amounts of $287.17 (1974) and $1,191.32 (1975). 3.16 As a result of the notice of appeal and the agreements made at the hearing, only the amounts of $5,498 (1974) and $17,260.28 (1975) relating to the Rochette house were the subject of the appeal, as well as the penalties relating to those amounts. ... Allan George Watts & Antoinette Cecile Watts v MNR, 27 Tax ABC 432; 61 DTC 592; 10. ...