Search - 江西农大 毛瑢

In anticipation of the required marble being purchased in Italy—though not till the autumn of 1921—the Company at once arranged for the conversion of the greater part of the £20,000 into lire at 103 to the £, and a lira account in the same joint names was opened. ... At 72 to the £ the lire realized £22,870 (for which a further account in the joint names was opened), a profit on their original purchase price (103 to the £) of £6,707, which was received by the Torquay Company. ... Held, that the said sum of £6,707 was not a profit arising out of the contract for the supply of marble, but was merely an appreciation of a temporary investment, and was not assessable to Income Tax as part of the profits of the Company’s trade. ’ ’ In agreeing with the findings of the Commissioners, Rowlatt, J., said at p. 405: “It seems to me that this profit out of the change from currency to currency three times does not touch the question of what the profit on the contract was at all. ...

(N.P.L.) 25,750.00 For 1966 making a total of $77,232.26 and "'—""— For 1967: Benefits from the pool house $ 4,912.94 and from furniture and fixtures 1,844.20 $ 6,757.14 Profits on the sale of 1,000 shares of the Far East Minerals Ltd. ... Angle’s assistance. ’ ’ In the case of the Far East Company, the appellant carried on the business of the Transworld Company, as evidenced by the agreement of April 1966 but also in the case of 100,000 shares, she carried on business on her own behalf and she bought those shares for the purpose of marketing at a profit. ...

An estimate or tentative assessment, form SD 1-C, mailed by the respondent September 19,1951, was marked ‘‘ Exhibit 2” and showed in its heading the following: Aggregate Net Value—$302,521.57 District of Toronto. ... Weston.- $ 400.00 Sadie Weston 3,230.00 Mary Weston 650.00 Lottie Weston 200.00 C. ... In the case of the legacy of $2,500.00 to the appellant Miss Helen Smith, a stranger in blood shown as Class “ D ”, an additional rate of 5.2 per cent or a total rate of 4.2 per cent was applied, resulting in a duty of $355.00. ...

It was stated to be ‘‘ Amount received in 1948 from Agency of Canadian Car and Foundry Limited in respect of a claim for services rendered by the deceased during his lifetime”. ... The first point which I shall consider is whether the amounts paid as a result of the settlement were ‘‘income earned during the life ’ ’ of the late Mr. ... Peto in Trust’’, a sum equivalent to ten (10%) per cent of the aggregate amount which may become payable to me by Agency of Canadian Car & Foundry Company, Limited, and/or the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company by way of compensation and/or fees for services or otherwise in connection with or in relation to the Black Tom and Kingsland Claims now pending before the Mixed Claims Commission — from either or both — but not to exceed in all a total sum of $250,000. ...

By subsection (1) (a) of Section 11, a taxpayer is allowed, in computing income, to deduct ‘ such part of the capital cost to the taxpayer of property, or such amount in respect of the capital cost to the taxpayer of property, if any, as is allowed by regulation”’. For the respondent it is submitted that the deduction here claimed is allowed under paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of Regulation 1100, which reads as follows: ‘ ‘1100. (1) Under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 11 of the Act, there is hereby allowed to a taxpayer, in computing his income from a business or property, as the case may be, deductions for each taxation year equal to (c) such amount as he may claim in respect of property of Class 14 in Schedule 8 not exceeding the lesser of (1) the aggregate of the amounts for the year obtained by apportioning the capital cost to him of each property over the life of the property remaining at the time that the cost was incurred; or (ii) the undepreciated capital cost to him as of the end of the taxation year (before making any deduction under this subsection for the taxation year) for property of the class.” ... Subsection (4) (a) of Section 20 of the Act is as follows: “ (4) Where depreciable property did, at any time after the commencement of 1949, belong to a person (hereinafter referred to as the original owner) and has, by one or more transactions between persons not dealing at arm’s length, become vested in a taxpayer, the following rules are, notwithstanding section 17, applicable for the purposes of this section and regulations made under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 11; (a) the capital cost of the property to the taxpayer shall be deemed to be the amount that was the capital cost of the property to the original owner; ’ ’ Then by Section 139(5), it is provided: ‘ (5) For the purposes of this Act a corporation and a person or one of the several persons by whom it is directly or indirectly controlled, shall, without extending the meaning of the expression ‘to deal with each other at arm’s length’ be deemed not to deal with each other at arm’s length.” ...

The appellant among other things, submits: 1. that the first paragraph of the disposing Clause IV of the deceased’s will directed her executors and trustees to pay all succession duties and estate taxes — ‘ out of my general estate so that all benefits or dispositions given or made by me in my lifetime or by my will shall be free and clear therefrom’’. ... The first trust was — ‘‘to pay out of the capital of the residue of my Estate my just debts, funeral and testamentary expenses and all estate, legacy, succession and inheritance taxes or duties’’. ... The third trust was — ‘‘to pay or transfer the residue of my estate to E. ...

He has never sold a dog from 1956 to date, adding, ‘‘ No, they were not raised for that purpose, not from the time we discovered we had these. ... She stated that she and her husband did not start off with the intention of using the dogs for promotional purposes, but as she put it, “... we saw what we had and it was quite unusual and as we went along a little further and proved the quality of them and found that we were attaining something that was quite unusual, to have so many of such a uniform quality, that is when we really started to think that perhaps we could put this to some use. ’ ’ The appellant submits that the money he spent on his dogs for the years 1957 and 1958 are proper deductions on either one of two alternative grounds: (1) these dogs are part and parcel of his advertising business; (2) even if these dogs are too unrelated from this endeavour, then the whole kennel operation constitutes a farm and under Section 13 of the Income Tax Act, the provisions limiting farm loss will apply. ... The evidence of this taxpayer’s unsuccessful efforts to use these dogs profitably is such that the only inference one can draw from such a long story of frustrations is that it is not possible for him to use these dogs with a reasonable expectation of profit and, therefore, these expenses would be ‘‘ Personal or living expenses’’ under the above sections and undeductible. ...

It is not contended that the discounts in question for the years to which the Income War Tax Act applies were ‘‘interest’’ within the meaning of this provision and the liability of the respondent to tax in respect of the discounts realized by him in those years must stand or fall on the issue of whether or not they were profits or gains from any ‘‘trade’’ or ‘‘business’’ within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. 1946 $ 750.00 1947 968.23 1948 1,523.17 1949 711.73 1950 1,397.00 1951 5,798.11 1952 8,212.72 1953_. 8,703.35 1954 10,667.67 $38,731.98 For the years 1949, 1950, 1951 and 1952 the applicable statute was the Income Tax Act, S. of C. 1948, c. 52, and for the years 1953 and 1954 the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148. ... ’ ’ I turn now to the facts as given in evidence by the respondent who was the only witness called at the hearing of the appeal. ... Year Purchases Amount Principal of N o. paid Discount mortgages off off realized purchased 1944 3 $ 4,144.50 $ 4,860.00 1945 1 914.00 975.00 1946 23 46,577.66 51,592.02 ~~4 $ 750.00 1947 25 50,169.83 62,529.97 6 968.23 1948 22 49,063.70 60,743.57 8 1,523.17 1949 30 72,096.06 85,423.63 3 711.73 1950 31 78,922.09 96,787.38 5 1,397.00 1951 36 89,790.68 115,802.80 17 5,798.11 1952 60 170,068.41 212,590.07 23 8,212.72 1953 34 115,835.07 148,365.76 18 8,703.35 1954 44 148,394.86 212,714.51 29 10,667.67 309 $825,976.86 $1,052,384.71 113 $38,731.98 At the end of 1954 he had on hand 196 mortgages with unrealized discounts amounting to $187,675.87 most if not all of which has since been realized and he has also continued to buy additional mortgages at a discount. ...

The appellant submitted that the question of whether the $18,000 was paid for the relinquishment of a franchise was a settled question of fact because in paragraph 3 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal of the respondent it was admitted ‘‘that the appellant agreed to pay and did pay Seven-Up Vancouver Ltd. the sum of $18,000 in consideration of relinquishing certain territory ’ ’. ...

. * =)? ak Q. Now, this whole plan hinged on the obtaining of a first mortgage loan? ...