Search - 江西农大 毛瑢

. ~- Appeal allowed in part. ...

The point at issue which does arise in relation to Schedule “A” is the date at which it can be said that Vernon Boles acquired his proprietary interest in the property — on the death of his father in 1967 (subject only to certain restrictions related to the maintenance of his mother, as contended by the Minister); or at the date of the Minutes of Settlement in 1973 — Schedule “C”, (as contended by the appellant). ... The original tax returns of Vernon Boles had been prepared dividing such expenses generally along a / personal, /3 farm ratio. In my view, little need be said regarding the last point — no basis was presented that any of the expenses disallowed by the Minister in connection with the farm operation should be allowed by the Board. ...

Counsel for the Minister has noted the wording of paragraph 109(1)(b) and I read it for the record: “Wholly dependent persons — In the case of an individual not entitled to a deduction under paragraph (a)”, and then the section goes on to provide essentially the same dollar deduction as that provided under paragraph 109(1)(a). ... Paragraph 109(1)(b) has therein the condition precedent that we have noted: “not entitled” and in the event that a taxpayer “is entitled” to a deduction under paragraph 109(1)(a), paragraph 109(1)(b) is not open to him — not only is it not open to him for deduction, it is not even activated as a potential deduction section. ...

The notice of objection was signed by me at the office of my authorized agent, Proulx, Boyer, Charbonneau & Associates, on September 6, 1979. 4. ... It would seem to me that the interpretation placed upon the circumstances by counsel for the Minister is more plausible — that the matter did not receive the attention it warranted (whether of the taxpayer or his advisers), and that no adequate explanation of the delay has been presented. ...

The taxpayer, that is, the appellant, with another, incorporated a corporation known as Windermere Management Limited which in turn acquired shares in a corporation known as McCaffreys Hi Fi, TV & Appliances Limited and, as a condition of the purchase of McCaffreys’ shares, the taxpayer, that is, the appellant, was required to guarantee McCaffreys’ indebtedness to McCaffreys’ bank. ... & Appliances Limited (hereinafter referred to as “McCaffreys”); (c) the Appellant became guarantor of a loan in the amount of $2,000.00 made by the Toronto Dominion Bank to McCaffreys; (d) McCaffreys subsequently went bankrupt, and the said indebtedness to the Toronto Dominion Bank became uncollectable from McCaffreys; (e) as guarantor of this loan, the Appellant was required to satisfy the said debt, and did, in fact, discharge it by paying to the Bank the sum of $2,000.00 in the year 1972; (f) in the 1972 taxation year, the Appellant sought to deduct from his income the sum of $1,000.00 as an allowable capital loss, and the Respondent disallowed to the Appellant deduction of the said amount; In the Notice of Appeal the appellant states that: “Since the cost of the said shares in the said Corporation should equal the total amount paid by the Taxpayer, and since the proceeds of disposition is equal to less than the cost thereof to the taxpayer, the capital loss should be allowed as a deduction in the manner provided in Section 3 of the Income Tax Act.” ...

On September 15, 1968 he moved to the United States to accept employment with Gibbs & Hill, Inc, of New York, which company had offered him the position of mechanical engineer effective on completion of United States visa formalities. ... There is no doubt in my mind that, when the appellant accepted the offer of Gibbs & Hill, Inc, he intended to live permanently in the United States, and would have moved his family immediately if he could have sold his house in Scarborough. ...

Kellough & Associates, Land Economists and Agricultural Consultants. ... The following figures are of some interest in assessing the appel- lant’s business known as W R Kellough & Associates: 1966 1967 1968 Total fees and disbursements billed $36,999 $39,791 $75,403 Professional fees (cash basis) $38,372 $42,649 $60,398 Net income $12,865 $11,995 $17,488 In 1970, the gross income increased to $105,000 of which 25% was income of an agricultural nature. ...

., [1975] C.T.C. 2085, 75 D.T.C. 77 A J Frost: 1 I shall now give my decision in the above income tax appeal from an assessment pertaining to the 1971 taxation year, wherein the Minister of National Revenue assessed the appellant on his share of profits realized on the sale of an apartment building. 2 The appeals of Murray Armel, Joseph C Goldenberg and Gordon Atlin were heard, together with this appeal, on common evidence. 3 The appellant is a barrister and solicitor carrying on the practice of law as a partner in the law firm of Atlin, Goldenberg, Cohen, Gamble & Armel. In 1967, the appellant and his law partners, for an outlay of $6,333, acquired a one-third interest in St Clair & Warren Road Construction Company, a partnership engaged in the construction of an 80-suite apartment. ...

Yes, well, — Q. Is that correct? Show me the journal if it is not. A. ... Therefore, the adjusted market value as of: — December 31,1971 is $561,000 — November 13,1973 is $690,000 It was established that the site on which the Bell Tavern Steak House is built has a history dating back to 1836 as being used as a tavern, hotel, inn, etc. ... Relying on the information contained in the appraisal reports (without the premium) and on the oral evidence given, I consider that the fair value of the property as of December 31, 1971, is as follows: Fixtures $ 70,000 Electric Sign 900 Paving 5,000 Building 178,100 Land 186,000 Total $440,000 A fourth issue was raised by the appellant at the outset of the hearing and during argument. ...

Again certain quotations summarize his findings: Q Now, Mr Marriott, the issue here is that Wickett & Craig adopted the LIFO method of costing its inventory. ... The applicability of LIFO therefore, for income tax purposes, in computing the profit of Wickett & Craig falls within the provisions of section 9(1) of the Act. ... Appeal dismissed. 1 (Note *: In this Anaconda decision, the appellant was the Minister.) ...