Search - 江西农大 毛瑢

The respondent stated the following: —during the period from January 1, 1970 to about June 15 of the same year, the appellant was an employee of Sun Life of Canada Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Sun Life’’) as a life underwriter; —according to the terms of his contract of employment for Sun Life, the appellant was not required to have an office in his home; moreover, the appellant was entitled to be reimbursed for certain selling expenses; —from June 15, 1970 to July 28, 1972 the appellant was employed in the same capacity by Gérard Parizeau Ltée (hereinafter referred to as “Parizeau”); —according to the terms of the agreements entered into by the appellant and Parizeau, the appellant was entitled to be reimbursed for his travel expenses and for certain selling expenses; further, the taxpayer was not required to maintain an office at his residence; —on July 28,1972 the appellant left Parizeau and returned to work for Sun Life (on the terms mentioned above); — In fiscal year 1970, the appellant claimed as transportation expenses (automobile, taxi, air travel and so on), promotion (dinners, hotels, receptions, gifts and so on), advertising and office expenses (postal costs, stationery and so on), telephone expenses (business telephone calls at home, long distance calls, use of public telephones), office financing expenses, general expenses (accounting, legal costs, secretarial costs, interest and bank charges, office supply, books and magazines, and so on), commissions and bad debts, the total sum of $18,020.32 (44% of total reported income); —during his 1971 taxation year, the appellant deducted for the same accounts the total sum of $20,991.58 (45% of total reported income); —during the 1972 taxation year, the appellant deducted the same items, totalling $17,002.05 (62% of total reported income); —the respondent allowed the taxpayer the following total expense amounts without supporting documents: 1970 $10,383.20 1971 $12,182.99 1972 $ 7,101.05 —subsequently, in a later assessment for the 1971 taxation year, the respondent disallowed a further amount of $4,975.85 for expenses, and added to the taxpayer’s income for this period the sums of $2,492.81, representing commissions received from Assurance-vie Desjardins (see document T4-A) and a taxable automobile expense alowance of $1,400 which the appellant had omitted to include in his income; —the respondent submits that the appellant has not proved any of the expenses claimed, and the amounts already allowed are reasonable in the circumstances; —the respondent submits that in the circumstances the expenses already allowed to the taxpayer are the only reasonably allowable expenses; —the expense disallowed by the respondent were personal and living expenses of the taxpayer. ...

However, if the Board properly comprehends the situation, the following mathematical procedures occurred in order to initiate the assessment under review, although in certain places differences of one or two cents may show up, presumably due to the rounding of amounts in the computerized calculation process: (A) Taxable income reported $1,673.44 Add: Overpayment of CPP 9.99 Revised taxable income $1,683.43 2% of above for purposes of calculation of provincial tax credit $ 33.67 (B) Provincial tax credit reported $231.90 Less: 2% of taxable income 33.67 $198.23 (No 2% reduction is required for taxable income of less than $1,680). (C) Reported tax payable Nil Revised tax payable $89.60 Less: Tax deducted at source $ 15.00 Ontario tax credit (revised) 198.23 overpayment of CPP 9.99 $223.22 Refund due to taxpayer: $133.62 (The refund originally claimed by the taxpayer had been larger). ...

The solicitor, in addition, followed up that letter with his own letter to Kelleher on January 10, 1972, stating ‘‘ These alternatives are open for discussion with you until January 15...”. ... The loan is with the manager at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce on King St E, near the Bache & Co office, which is at number 18. ...

Facts 3.1 Between 1967 and 1970 appellant ran a general store (hardware, groceries, gasoline, dry goods, tobacco, and so on) in Farrelton, Quebec. 3.2 Appellant filed his tax returns for the years 1967 to 1970 within the time periods prescribed by the Act, reporting his net income as follows: 1967 $ 4,690.40 1968 6,033.48 1969 6,143.53 1970 9,734.52 $26,601.93 3.3 Each year, after the returns were filed, respondent issued assessments on the basis of appellant’s figures. 3.4 On December 15, 1971 respondent issued reassessments for each of the years in question, alleging the following additional, unreported income: 1967 $ 5,060.90 1968 5,060.90 1969 5,060.90 1970 5,060.90 $20,243.60 3.5 On March 5, 1972 Mr F Renaud filed a Notice of Objection. 3.6 On January 13,1975 the Minister advised Mr Renaud of his decision to confirm the reassessments made on December 15, 1971. 3.7 The additional income, which was the basis for the reassessments, was established by respondent using the net worth method. ...

On January 27, 1972 a letter was received by the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, on the stationery of Columbia Records of Canada Ltd (Exhibit A-2), which reads as follows: Dear Sir: I refer to your letter dated January 21, 1972, in which you requested, and I submit herewith, details and information regarding the purchase of shares of All Records Supply Company of Canada Limited by Columbia Records of Canada, Ltd, from Mr R J Perini. 1) A copy of purchase agreement is enclosed. 2) Schedule of Payments per year is as follows: Principal Interest Total (a) Nov. 28, 1968 660,000.00 — 660,000.00 (b) July 20/69 311,169.00 14,031.19 325,200.19 (c) Aug. 25/70 233,101.00 28,431.74 261,532.74 (d) Oct. 4/71 597,377.00 119,262.60 716,639.60 $1,801,647.00 161,725.53 1,963,372.53 I trust this is the information you require. ... The answer to this question is given in the headnote of Trollope & Colls Ltd et al v Atomic Power Construction Ltd, [1962] 3 All ER 1035, where it says: Per CURIAM: there is no principle of English law which provides that a contract cannot in any curcumstances have retrospective effect or that, if it purports to have retrospective effect, it is in law a nullity. ...

Facts stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Reply to Notice of Appeal — which read as follows— “2. He (the Minister of National Revenue) says that: (i) at all times material hereto the Appellant was a partner in the law firm of Arpin & Company and in his 1970 taxation year reported as income his share of the net profits from that source, minus automobile expenses, being the amount of $26,832.24: (ii) at all times material hereto the Appellant held, except for qualifying shares, all the shares of a private company known as Acadian Investments Ltd which reported a net loss of $22,789.15 in its 1970 taxation year; and (iii) the Appellant in his 1970 return of income deducted the net loss of Acadian Investments Ltd from his business income so that his total income reported was $4,043.09 and the taxable income reported was $2,444.14. 3. ...

The shareholdings were based on those of International Food and Blue Label Food — Mr Guest, an employee of Vancouver Fancy Sausage Co Ltd, holding 50 common shares. ... In a statement from McIntosh, McVicar, Dinsley & Co, chartered accountants, addressed to Vancouver Fancy Sausage Co Ltd, dated January 15, 1962 (Exhibit R-2) the following item appears: Professional services with respect to the reorganization of the company’s operations in view of the 1960 amendments to the Income Tax Act with respect to the association of companies. ...

The purchase price of the 2 /2 acres for $350,000 was to be paid as follows — $175,000 on conveyance of the clear title to the land and $175,000 when $1,400,000 of material and labour had been expended on the construction of the tower. ... In that way the appellant would have the $2,600,000 required for the construction of the first tower — the $350,000 received by the appellant for the sale of the land being entirely used to meet part of the building cost. ...

Since the evidence was not very clear with regard to the company to be incorporated, it is assumed that the offer was made by Mr Young as trustee for the appellant company and that the property was duly conveyed to the appellant. 8 Mr Peter Lush, a real estate broker and chairman of Peter G Lush & Associates Limited, a firm which offered full real estate services to land developers, testified that, on hearing that the Fisher-Hoover property had been acquired by the appellant company, he offered Mr Young and Mr Ward the services of his company, and the offer was accepted. Although Mr Young's and Mr Ward's original concept seems to have been the servicing of the Fisher- Hoover land and the building of residential housing thereon for resale, Mr Lush suggested that the best use of the land in question would be a “mixed-use” development comprising a commercial complex which would include a hotel, a motel with convention facilities, retail outlets, a service centre, an apartment hotel, a low-intensity residential area, and possibly also an industrial area. 9 The Fisher-Hoover property was at that time zoned as agricultural land but, in the autumn of 1969, a new by-law was to be introduced, and it was contemplated therein that the subject property would be zoned industrial. 10 As part of its services, Peter G Lush & Associates Limited objected to the proposed municipal zoning of the Fisher-Hoover property and, hoping to enter into a dialogue on the question, unofficially filed a preliminary and preparatory block plan of the commercial complex proposed for the land in question, with a view to having the ultimate zoning changed to commercial instead of industrial. 11 I am satisfied from the evidence (Exhibits A-1 to A-9) that some effort was indeed made to have the zoning changed to commercial and that some preliminary work was done to interest participants in the proposed project. 12 An approach was made to Mr William Stevenson, a business associate of a Mr Rubinoff, who, as I understand it, is with the Holiday Inn chain of hotel- motels, a chain which Mr Lush was hoping would agree to be part of the commercial complex. ...

It reads in part as follows: ‘“.. for deposit to my Retirement Savings Plan, plan no 252 2221040.” ... & Louise Cheff—Registered 2/17/76—#224474— Total Investment Contributions 4000.00’’. ...