Search - 江西农大 毛瑢

Under this arrangement, the appellants paid themselves management fees of $18,000 each and declared dividends in favour of their wives in the years under appeal as follows: Mrs Titeley Mrs Carvell 1970 $15,600 $ 7,800 1971 15,350 7,675 1972 15,600 7,800 1973 18,700 9,350 $65,250 $32,625 For an investment of $20 Mrs Titeley received $65,250 in dividends in four years, and Mrs Carvell, for her $10 contribution, received a return of $32,625 for the same period. ...

This burden of proof results not from any provision of the Income Tax Act but from several decisions [, including the judgment] of the Supreme Court of Canada rendered in R RWS Johnston v MNR, [1948] CTC 195; 3 DTC 1182. 3. ...

I believe that it is significant that the firm of McDonald, Currie & Co, Chartered Accountants, in its auditors’ report to the appellant shareholders on November 15, 1971, after a physical inventory of the appellant company’s major stock items had been taken, felt it necessary to include therein the following statement: We were unable to verify the valuation of inventories in detail as the valuation was determined by Mr G W O’Boyle the President, on an estimated basis only. ...

He found futures trading " a little exciting’ and he had a feeling for what was likely to happen. ...

Salaries and wages $ 90.00 Interest 69.97 Taxes 296.95 Insurance 81.28 Building repairs 92.44 Fence repairs 5.00 Gas and Oil 4.50 Repairs, Licenses, Insurance 5.50 Telephone, Light and Power 64.64 Trees 143.00 Advertising 5.55 Small tools 25.17 Pump repairs 18.25 To which was added capital cost allowance on the buildings and machinery 869.00 ‘In the summer of 1972 the appellant entered into a share arrangement with James Beckta by which the appellant would keep the revenue derived from cattle-raising and Mr James Beckta would keep the revenue from garden farming but both would share in the general or common farm expenditures. ...

. \;..,; lt is admitted by counsel for the Minister that the expenses claimed ‘are proper expenses, with perhaps some doubt as to the eligibility of travelling expenses for the signing of documents, but he contends that the move in question took place prior to January 1, 1972 and therefore, by section 27 of the Income Tax Application Rules, 1971, the appellant is not entitled to take advantage of the provisions of this deducting section. ...

Counsel further referred to subsection 137(2) of the Income Tax Act which creates a presumption to the effect that a person who confers a benefit on another person such as, in this instance, the mortgage to the children — the benefit shall be deemed to be a disposition by way of a gift. ...

In the course of the argument the following were some of the cases cited and considered: Okalta Oils Limited v MNR, [1955] S.C.R. 824; [1955] CTC 271; 55 DTC 1176: Anjulin Farms Ltd v MNR, [1961] Ex CR 381; [1961] CTC 250: 61 DTC 1182; Newfoundland Minerals Ltd v MNR, [1969] CTC 639: 69 DTC 5432; Louis J Harris v MNR, [1966] S.C.R. 489; [1966] CTC 226; 66 DTC 5189; Ernest G Stickel v MNR, [1972] CTC 210; 72 DTC 6178; Falconbridge Nickel Mines v MNR, [1971] CTC 789; 71 DTC 5461; Pure Spring Ltd v MNR, [1946] Ex CR 471; [1946] CTC 169; 2 DTC 844; Bert W Woon v MNR, [1950] Ex CR 327; [19501 CTC 263; 4 DTC 871; Rainbow Pipe Line Co Limited v MNR, [1972] CTC 2127; 72 DTC 1132; Zomac Holdings Limited v MNR, [1972] CTC 2191; 72 DTC 1150; Andrew A Wurz v MNR, [1972] CTC 2294; 72 DTC 1238; T Desmond Earl v MNR, 40 Tax ABC 329; 66 DTC 192; Ontario Culvert & Metal Products Ltd v MNR, 38 Tax ABC 256; 65 DTC 379. ...

On November 10, 1964 appellant deposited the sum of $40,000 in the account of “Jean-Louis Gauthier & Léo Lisi in trust”. ...

Subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) reads — (ii) in respect of a period while he was required by his duties to be away, for a period of not less than 36 hours, from his ordinary place of residence; The appellant who does not receive a board or lodging allowance, who was not away from his ordinary place of residence for a period of at least 36 hours, and whose employment does not meet the description of employment in subparagraph 5(2)(a)(i) does not, in my opinion, fall within the exceptions provided in that section. ...