Search - 江西农大 毛瑢

., at which time he would proceed to his office at the Clinic for appointments extending possibly until 5:30 — provided he was not recalled to the hospital during the afternoon, a circumstance which would delay the completion of his normal working day. ... I will see him tomorrow morning — I’ll see him twice again tomorrow — and this will not show as a hospital visit. ... If perchance there was a minimal personal use to be imputed to his “professional” car — which Dr White did not admit but firmly denied — then that minimal use, he argued, had been more than offset by the use of his personal or family car for business purposes when his “professional” car was inoperative. ...

In assessing Tony Mele for 1978 the Minister added to declared income $18,950, an item described in the notice of reassessment as “Appropriation of funds re Tony Mele Inc — Advances to Third Parties”. ... It might be helpful to refer to what Viscount Simon said in IRC v Gardner Mountain & D’Ambrumenil, Ltd, 29 TC 69 at 93: In calculating the taxable profit of a business... services completely rendered or goods supplied, which are not to be paid for till a subsequent year, cannot, generally speaking, be dealt with by treating the taxpayer’s outlay as pure loss in the year in which it was incurred and bringing in the remuneration as pure profit in the subsequent year in which it is paid, or is due to be paid. ...

On a general basis I should like to note — first, that according to the evidence given by both representatives of Revenue Canada and by the President of the appellant corporation, to whatever degree the loss is deductible at all for the entire five-year period which would end in 1979, the appropriate deduction was taken in its calculations by the taxpayer in preparing tax returns for those years. ... To my knowledge that phrase is extracted directly, in essence if not in wording, from Bisson, [1972] CTC 446; 72 DTC 6374, which has been cited in the Jet Metals case — “a normally wise and cautious taxpayer”. ...

By June of 1974 the appellants had not yet had plans drawn nor had they retained a contractor for the construction of the proposed building; Mr William Grimes, a real estate agent in the firm of C A Fitzsimmons & Co Ltd, approached Mr Ebbs with a proposal from his client, the Fuller Construction Company, to enter into the appellants’ partnership for the development of the building. It is alleged that the property was listed with C A Fitzsimmons & Co Ltd in order to somehow protect Mr Grimes’ commission since the transaction would entail a sale or transfer of the property and he was the person who had brought the parties together. ...

The facts of this appeal are set out clearly in paragraph 5, subparagraphs (a) to (j) inclusive of the reply to the notice of appeal, whch read as follows: [Translation] In assessing the appellant for the 1975 taxation year, the respondent relied, inter alia, on the following assumptions of fact: (a) During 1969 Her Majesty in Right of Canada, represented by the Department of Public Works, expropriated the appellant’s existing property for use in the construction of Mirabel airport; (b) During 1975 an agreement was entered into between Her Majesty in Right of Canada and the appellant setting the compensation for the expropriation at $953,282; (c) By a resolution dated Octiber 9, 1975 the appellant ratified the agreement referred to in the preceding paragraph; (d) The compensation agreed upon by Her Majesty in Right of Canada and the appellant was broken down as follows: Land $ 41,835 Building 128,210 Artesian wells, sewers 5,095 Movable and fixed equipment 778,142 Total $953,282 (e) In addition to the said compensation, the appellant received from Her Majesty in Right of Canada in 1975 the sum of $260,444.81 as interest payable on the expropriation compensation from March 27, 1969; (f) Included in the appellant’s property that was expropriated was property in Classes 8 and 19 (Regulation 1100 et seq), for which the compensation was $778,142; (g) The portion of the compensation relating to the Class 19 property was at least $171,496.13; (h) The undepreciated capital cost of the Class 19 property was zero (0) on December 31, 1975; (i) The appellant’s capital cost for the Class 19 property was $171,496.13; (j) The recaptured depreciation in respect of the Class 19 property was $171,496.13 in 1975. ... “Proceeds of disposition”. — “proceeds of disposition” of property includes (iii) Compensation for property destroyed and any amount payable under a policy of insurance in respect of loss or destruction of property, (iv) compensation for property taken under statutory authority or the sale price of property sold to a person by whom notice of an intention to take it under statutory authority was given. ...

Immediately following that motion, the Minute contained the following: Cash Position — Mr Gibson advised the meeting that the above actions may cause a short cash position at times throughout the year. ... His submission continues that the sole purpose of that subsection is for the protection of the payor — if it has paid that person the dividend then, in so far as it is concerned, the dividend has been paid properly. ...

. — any amount received by the taxpayer in the year, pursuant to an order of a competent tribunal, as an allowance payable on a periodic basis for the maintenance of the recipient thereof, children of the marriage, or both the recipient and children of the marriage, if the recipient was living apart from the spouse required to make the payment at the time the payment was received and throughout the remainder of the year; The related paragraph 60(c) of the Act permitting the deduction of maintenance payments made by a taxpayer, states: (c) Maintenance payments. — an amount paid by the taxpayer in the year, pursuant to an order of a competent tribunal, as an allowance payable on a periodic basis for the maintenance of the recipient thereof, children of the marriage, or both the recipient and children of the marriage, if he was living apart from his spouse to whom he was required to make the payment at the time the payment was made and throughout the remainder of the year; The issue is whether the Supreme Court of Ontario had jurisdiction in a decree nisi to make the award for maintenance of the appellant’s children “tax free”? ...

It was proven by the appellant that in fact the right amount could be $8.82. 3.11 To arrive at the figures $43.74 per share in December 1971 and $29.01 per share on April 7, 1975, the appellant’s appraiser, Price Waterhouse & Co., investigated two alternative methods (as explained in Exhibit A-1, part D-1): Method 1: Re-Valuation of Assets Method Computing a revised book value of the shares by re-valuing assets on the basis of replacement. ... The correction being done, the computation is as follows: V/D 1971 V/D of Gift ’75 Corrected appellant’s figures $43.74 $47.27 respondent’s figures $22.00 $34.00 $65.74 $81.27 Divided by 2 $32.87 $40.63- 7.50 —see paragraph $33.13 $33.13 3.10 of the Facts —capital gain $33.13- $32.87 = $0.26 However, as the science of valuation is not an exact one, and as the difference in the present case is not substantial, it is the Board’s opinion that the price could be the same at the two dates. ...

By registered letter dated April 6, 1973, Mr Kassirer of the firm Spencer, Romberg, Kassirer, Barkin & Esbin, acting on behalf of Mr Liebeck, advised the appelant that his share of the balance was $97,475 and unless the amount was received by April 10, 1973, the appellant would be considered as being no longer interested in the project and Mr Liebeck and Mr Huning would complete the transaction without the appellant (Tab 4). This was the beginning of a series of letters exchanged between Mr Gross of the firm Minden, Gross, Grafstein & Greenstein, who also acted as the appellant’s counsel at the hearing, and the Spencer firm. ...

In 1972 he moved to Rimouski, with the Gaspé peninsula as his territory. 3.4 He spent most of his time on the road meeting customers. 3.5 He was paid on both a salary and a commission basis: 1971 1972 Salary $5,355.09 $ 4,938.10 Commission $5,659.77 $20,647.53 3.6 The appellant was obliged to supply his own automobile. ... After April 2, 1977: (a) $2.50 per day for each day the automobile is used for work, plus (b) $0.052 per mile for the first 140 miles each week, $0,072 for each mile over 140 miles or $0.17 per mile for the first 50 miles each week, $0.12 for the next 50 miles, $0.08 for each additional mile. 3.7 According to the same document, entertainment expenses were generally not reimbursed, with the exception of the old minor expense. 3.8 During the years in question the appellant received the following amounts: 1971 1972 Automobile $1,151.32 $1,411.30 Automobile Miscellaneous 51.40 75.98 These amounts were not included on the T-4 and the appellant did not declare them as income, just as the respondent did not include them. 3.9 For the years in question the appellant claimed the following amounts in his tax returns: 1971 1972 Automobile (75%) $2,100.00 $3,783.10 Miscellaneous Car rental for work — 175.13 Parking 175.50 100.00 Entertainment expenses 200.00 500.00 Telephone 20.00 32.00 Office supplies 74.00 128.98 Association 15.00 35.00 Professional services 484.50 1,001.11 3.10 The appellant had all the receipts for the autombile expenses and 40 to 60% of the receipts for the other expenses. ...