Search - 江西农大 毛瑢

However, in this matter, the impediment on the 90th day was nothing different than the impediment had been all along — a lack of knowledge on the part of the applicant and the accountants of the critical final date. ... I am impressed by the interpretation placed on section 167 by counsel for the Minister — that the “circumstances” are not sufficient if they merely outline the reasons why the filing was not done, they must underscore and substantiate why it was not possible to do so. ... During argument, reference was made by both parties to the predecessor sections in the old Income Tax Act — subsections 61 A(1), (2) and (5). ...

In computing his income for the 1974 taxation year, the appellant sought to deduct the amount of $3,626.65 as expenses incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income, calculated as follows: Automobile Expenses Insurance $ 124.00 Gas and Oil 1,156.00 Repairs 316.40 Car Payments 995.00 Washes, Polishes 355.00 Parking 110.00 Total— Automobile $2,655.40 Less—25% Personal Use 663.75 Net Automobile $1,991.05 Telephone 120.00 Postal and Stationery 215.00 Promotion, etc 355.00 Delivery Expenses 550.00 Expenses due to Sales 395.00 $3,625.65 In computing his income for the 1975 taxation year, the appellant sought to deduct the amount of $4,884 as expenses incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income, calculated as follows: Automobile Expenses Insurance $ 224.00 Repairs 456.00 Gas 1,465.00 Washes, Polishes 428.00 Parking 142.00 Error in Calculation 995.00 Total—Automobile $3,710.60 Less—25% Personal Use 927.60 Net Automobile $2,783.00 Telephone 146.00 Mailing and Stationery 386.00 Delivery Expenses 635.00 Promotions, Floral Gifts 479.00 Expenses due to Sales 455.00 $4,884.00 The respondent allowed for the 1974 taxation year, a deduction in the amount of $994 and in the computation of his income for the 1975 taxation year, a deduction in the amount of $1,054, as the cost of supplies consumed directly in the performance of the appellant’s duties of employment in those years. ... Based on this information (it) is evident that adjustments are warranted in each year as follows: 1974 1975 1975 general promotion 100 100 bird dog fees 945 810 auto: insurance 96 96 washes—$2.50 x 50 125 125 gas and oil 1,156 1,465 1,377 1,676 less personal 20615 26750 23115 1,228 29250 1,532 149 144 Total Expenses $994 $1,054 Business = days x 8 miles x 50 weeks Thus, adjustments for $994 in 1974 and $1,054 for 1975 appear warranted as this appears to be in keeping with taxpayer’s conditions of employment and information submitted. ...

In Mr Murillo’s and Mr Valitalo’s 1974 returns there is also a balance sheet as at February 1, 1974, the date at which Tip Top was incorporated, in which V & M Properties is also shown as having $182,220.50 as fixed assets in the land and buildings at 3323 Danforth Avenue. No evidence whatever was adduced to establish that in the transfer of property from the Tip Top partnership (which is shown as the owner of the property in January 1974) to V & M Properties (apparently the appellants’ and their wives’) that any consideration was paid for the property. In cross-examination of the appellants and their wives, not one of them had even heard of or knew what V & M Properties was. ...

Also, in order to enable Port-May to keep current in its mortgage payments, Mr Swystun personally advanced to the company the following sums on the dates indicated: February 13,1973 $ 9,620.50 September 4,1973 4,500 October 17, 1973 15,500 December 17,1973 2,500 On July 4, 1974, the appellant bought the Port-May shares and receivable previously held by Mr Prychitko. ... The advances were made by cheque drawn on the Swystun & Company (law firm) trust account. ... The advances to Port-May were made by cheque drawn on the Swystun & Company trust account. ...

(Government Liquor Act— Government of British Columbia)... d/Oct. 23/1970; A-13 Letter dated February 5, 1971 to Mr V C Woodland from R A Lougheed; A-14 Letter dated April 21, 1971 to R A Lougheed from Kincaid, Epstein & Company and Memorandum of Agreement dated February 27, 1970 between Barry Investments Ltd and Haan Construction Ltd, of the First Part, and Mr Mike’s North America Steak Franchise Ltd, of the Second Part; A-15 Letter dated July 8, 1976 to Nechako Holdings Ltd from Kincaid, Epstein & Company and Surrender of Franchise Agreement dated July 9, 1976; A-16 Sale of Assets to Chilliwack Steak House Ltd dated December 31, 1971; A-17 Operating Statement of Mr Mike’s of Chilliwack dated December 1971; A-18 Invoice (November 5, 1970) to R A Lougheed from Kinsman, MacDonald & Mott. ...

The appellant filed a second Notice of Objection to the second Notice of Reassessment and on January 30, 1970 received a notification by the Minister that the second Notice of Reassessment was confirmed — which resulted in the current appeal. ... Usually the captain gets two shares — one in his capacity as captain paid by the owner of the boat and the other as a member of the crew. ... Apparently, its sole employee was its main shareholder — the appellant in this appeal. ...

The breakdown between land and building is as follows: Building at book value $ 30,670.03 Land 109,329.97 Sale price of land and building 140,000.00 Reassessments on this basis will be issued in due course. ... Tanner & Company to Department of National Revenue. Mr HYNES: Mr Shikaze’s reply is now in the record as exhibit A-3. ... The evidence further indicated that: the building was old and could not be considered a viable structure; the boiler and elevator were operating but in a shaky condition; a new roof was needed and the floors required extensive repairs; the property was in the area included in the Civic Centre Redevelopment Plan; the trend in that area was towards the construction of large office buildings; the old building had no place in the Civic Centre Plan; the price of land was moving up very quickly in the area; the appellant had a lease with North-West Tent & Awning Co Ltd which prevented demolition until December 31, 1967; the net return from the building amounted to about $8,000; the site is one of the choice locations in Edmonton; and, finally, the building was bought by a syndicate of lawyers at a time when there was a trend towards the construction of large buildings in Edmonton, requiring the assemblage of land to complete projects. ...

He consulted his solicitor, H Guthrie, Esq, QC, of the then law firm of Hungerford & Guthrie, of Guelph, Ontario, who wrote a letter to Pirelli Cables Limited, for the attention of Mr Maund, copy of which was filed as Exhibit A-6 and reads as follows: Dear Sirs, Our ref: 330-71-HG— E A Pollard We have been consulted by E A Pollard with respect to his termination by your Company. ... Yours very truly, HUNGERFORD & GUTHRIE. 19 The appellant states that he was wrongfully dismissed without cause while he had every reason to believe that he was secure in his tenure until age 60, assuming he could make arrangements for early retirement and providing he performed his duties. ... He started making inquiries by telephone and letter (see Exhibits A-8 and A-9) about similar employment elsewhere but has been unable to obtain any such employment to this date. 20 The obstacles he encountered in his endeavour to obtain employment in his field are his age, scarcity of similar positions, his specialized knowledge and experience in a narrow field and the fact that his qualifications and experience command a salary that prospective employers are not willing to pay when they can get along with less qualified personnel whom they train on the job. 21 On receipt of the original of Exhibit A-6, Pirelli turned it over to its solicitors, Messrs Kearns, McKinnon, Gifford, Hamilton & Bean, of Guelph, Ontario, who replied on February 10, 1972 (Exhibit A-7). ...

Apparently the drinking problem continued and eventually — in the early summer of 1967, it would appear from the evidence — Hatton was discharged by Mr Gladstone on behalf of the company. ...

He had been with W Hedley Wilson, his father, in the general insurance field and at the material time was — or perhaps not then but certainly is now — the head of the firm. ... The evidence substantiates the fact that this was a — I hesitate to use the term “ridiculous”, but at least an extremely high, price for the land in question compared to general land sales in the area. ...