Search - 江西农大 毛瑢

. — In 1977 the family did not have a car. —The brother and sisters claimed in 1977 are now out of school, and the financial burden on the father is reduced. ...

It contemplates the acquisition of fully-paid treasury shares — in this case with a par value. ...

On his own, the appellant investigated and found out that Handy & Harman, with a refinery in Fairfield, Connecticut, was a key smelter in the silver business. ... From that point the appellant would go to Handy & Harman (or on a couple of occasions another smelter), deliver the coins for refining and in due course receive a bankdraft for the value of the mint silver. ... With Handy & Harman he used the name Bud Hamilton. I notice that after the seiure by the US Customs he went back home to get another 10 bags to deliver to Rene Laplante, however, no further evidence was given. ...

During cross-examination, counsel for the respondent, through this witness, introduced the following exhibits: R-1—Copy of a letter dated November 11, 1974 from Mr W Edwin Jarmain to Mr J MacDonald: R-2—Copy of a letter dated March 22, 1976 from Mr W Edwin Jarmain to Price Waterhouse & Co: R-3—Certificate of Amendment of Articles re: Cablesystems Engineering Limited (formerly Jarmain Teleservices Limited); R-4—Vernon’s London City Directory 1971-72. ... Price Waterhouse & Co. Suite 1501, Canada Trust Tower, 275 Dundas Street, LONDON, Ontario. ... The second comment is “... after concluding the consulting arrangements with which he was involved prior to our arrangement, he was not to offer or extend consulting services to new clients without our consent and agreement.” ...

In her testimony, Mrs Doucet stated — and this is admitted by the appellant — that no residential development would have been possible in Varennes if the provisional plan, made under Bill 90, had not been amended to make the zoning of the appellant’s land non-agricultural. ...

Evidence The testimony of Mr William A Johnson generally substantiated the background information given above, and in addition provided the following factors of note: — It was the appellants’ understanding that Mappin had tried but had been unsuccessful in obtaining the required funding from the Federal Industrial Development Bank. —“... we were very anxious to be out of the business because we were, of course, bound by our professional obligations and the business at that time was breaking even, but it obviously would have gone slowly downhill possibly.... ... So we agreed to take a $10,000 note additionally from both Mappin and Bar Circle for the $10,000 also at 10 /4% with interest to be paid monthly and the full amount to accrue in one year. —... the proceeds of the winding-up... of Mappin’s business resulted in payment only to the landlord who was first, plus some taxes. ...

The resulting calculation, which was included in the Appellant’s 1973 Canadian income tax return, was as follows: “Calculation of taxable portion of stock option benefit Date option granted October 4, 1967 Date option exercised Sept 26, 1973 Date ceased to be resident in Canada and returned to US April 1, 1971 Days between grant and exercise dates: Spent in Canada 1224 56.04 Spent in US* 960 43.96 2184 100.00 Taxable portion of stock option benefit:.5604 x 77,812.50 = $43,606.13 Includes 51 days spent in US on business between Oct 4, 1967 and April 1, 1971.” 10. ... In addition, I will be referring to several subsections and paragraphs of the Income Tax Act as well as two Articles of the Canada-US Tax Convention, as follows: 2. (3) Where a person who is not taxable under subsection (1) for a taxation year (a) was employed in Canada, (b) carried on a business in Canada, or (c) disposed of a taxable Canadian property, at any time in the year or a previous year, an income tax shall be paid as hereinafter required upon his taxable income earned in Canada for the year determined in accordance with Division D. 6. (1) There shall be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year as income from an office or employment such of the following amounts as are applicable: (a) the value of board, lodging arid other benefits of any kind whatever (...) received or enjoyed by him in the year in respect of, in the course of, or by virtue of an office or employment; 7. (1) Where a corporation has agreed to sell or issue shares of the capital stock of the corporation or of a corporation with which it does not deal at arm’s length to an employee of the corporation or of a corporation with which it does not deal at arm’s length, (a) if the employee has acquired shares under the agreement, a benefit equal to the amount by which the value of the shares at the time he acquired them exceeds the amount paid or to be paid to the corporation therefor by him shall be deemed to have been received by the employee by virtue of his employment in the taxation year in which he acquired the shares; (4) For greater certainty it is hereby declared that, where a person to whom any provision of subsection (1) would otherwise apply has ceased to be an employee before all things have happened that would make that provision applicable, subsection (1) shall continue to apply as though the person were still an employee and as though the employment were still in existence. 115. (1) For the purposes of this Act, a non-resident person’s taxable income earned in Canada for a taxation year is the amount of his income for the year that would be determined under section 3 if (a) he had no income other than (i) incomes from the duties of. offices and employments performed by him in Canada, (v) in the case of a non-resident person described in subsection (2), the aggregate determined under paragraph (2)(e) in respect of him, (2) Where, in a taxation year, a non-resident person was (c) an individual who had, in any previous year, ceased to be resident in Canada and who was, in the taxation year, in receipt of remuneration in respect of an office or employment that was paid to him directly or indirectly by a person resident in Canada, ARTICLE VII 1. ... As I view the combined effects of paragraph (a) of subsection 7(1) and subsection (4) of section 7 if needed, the benefit the appellant realized was a benefit he realized as an employee of the company, and if paragraph (a) of subsection 7(1) does not embrace the benefit the appellant realized, then it is clear that subsection (4) of section 7 does, and it says in these circumstances: “... as though the person were still an employee and as though the employment were still in existence”. ...

Mr Brian Usher-Jones, CA, of Montreal, Quebec, member of the accounting firm of Coopers & Lybrand, was called on behalf of the appellant. ... In addition, it had, up to the end of 1971, three other main clients; namely, Ocean Steel & Construction Limited, Strescon Limited and Ferro-Chemi-Crete Ltd. ... Ocean Steel & Construction Limited was one of the largest steel companies in Saint John. ...

In filing his income tax return for 1973 the Appellant did not make any application with respect to ‘ General Averaging’’. 5. ... As we are unable to provide you with a duplicate of your return, a breakdown of the calculations to arrive at your refund are as follows:— Net income $15,154.00 Total personal exemptions $2,567.00 Medical expenses $713.30 Less: 3% of net income 454.64 Allowable portion of medical expenses $258.66 Add: Charitable donations 214.00 Total allowable amounts $472.66 472.66 Total $3,039.66 3,039.66 Taxable income $12,114.34 Federal taxes $2,087.20 Provincial tax $ 670.10 Total tax $2,757.30 TD per T4 $5,701.47 Amount assessed $2,757.30 Previous assessment 2,702.10 Debit of $ 55.20 Please find enclosed a photocopy of Paragraph 110(1)(c) medical ex- penses, we hope this will clarify the situation for you. ...

Following reassessments by which the appellant company was disallowed carrying charges on land which had been considered by the Minister as being held as investment, the appellant agreed voluntarily to capitalize the said carrying charges, with the result that in 1965, 1970 and 1974 the appellant had actually capitalized the following amounts: 1965 $ 175,389.23 1970 603,038.56 1974 1,522,207.19 The appellant’s first witness was the respondent’s auditor, Mr Jacques Trudel, who testified that the appellant was reassessed on the proceeds of the expropriation because all its shareholders were considered traders and also because the great majority of the appellant’s income (90%) came out of capital gain. ... Mr Goldfarb also testified to the same effect, and I cite from page 66 of volume 2 of the transcript:. + SO, our major opposition to developing the shopping centre really came from the St Hubert Street Merchants’ Association. ... Another piece of property, known as Persillier L’Acadie, was acquired in 1953 in association with Messrs Rojac & Segals with a clause that no one would sell for a period of three years (Exhibit A-45) without offering the others first refusal. ...