Search - 消费者权益保护法di

Facts The facts are straightforward and not in dispute. 3.1 The appellant, who is unmarried, has for a number of years lived with Louise Di Cesare, with whom he has had two children, Nicolas and Sonia. 3.2 The appellant claimed, in respect of 1974, a married exemption for Louise Di Césare in the amount of $1,492, and $320 for each of his two children. Both children and Louise Di Césare were wholly dependant upon him during this year. 3.3 On July 21, 1975 the respondent, in assessing the appellant’s income tax return, disallowed the exemption of $1,492 for Louise Di Césare, but allowed $1,492 for his son, Nicholas, and $320 for his daughter Sonia under paragraph 109(1)(b) and paragraph 109(1)(d) respectively of the new Act. ... This article does not permit such an exemption in Louise Di Césare’s favour, since one of the conditions to be met requires the person to be connected with the taxpayer by blood relationship, marriage or adoption. ...

The facts in this appeal are considerably different from those in the case of Daniel Di Francesco v MNR, 34 Tax ABC 380; 64 DTC. 106, cited by counsel for the appellant where Daniel Di Francesco’s relationship with the real estate company was on an ad hoc basis where the company had no control whatsoever over him and did not consider him to be an employee. In my view the facts in this appeal can also be distinguished from those of the other cases cited by the appellant based on the Daniel Di Francesco decision. ...

The following table shows in detail the expenses under dis- cussion: 1973 Expenses Expenses Expenses claimed allowed allowed disallowed 1. ...

In connection with the imposition of a penalty, Mr Raymond Alphonso Di Martile, Field Auditor for Revenue Canada, presented his “Penalty Recommendation Report’’ as Exhibit R-1. ... Little had been provided by the appellant during Mr Di Martile’s audit which would validate the existence of the amount in ques tion ($9,162.14.) as at March 31, 1975, which was the start of the appellant’s business year under review. ... However, the Minister has not eliminated the possibility that the total amount in question, or for that matter even the specific amount referenced and detailed by Mr Di Martile, was left out of the reported income through simple “neglect” even though there were inadequate business records. ...

To received from Alex Jovanovich — re: balance due on closing as per Statement of Adjustments $79,655.53 To paid to The Royal Bank of Canada — re: pay out of existing Agreement re Lodgement of Title Documents — as per telephone call made July 28/78 $22,544.23 To paid to E J Rutherford Real Estate Inc — re: balance of real estate commission 4,294.00 To paid to Hart & Parkhill — re: account for fees & dis bursements 380.29 To paid balance in trust a/c to Mr and Mrs Eelkema via deposit to a/c #518-598-8 at Royal Bank, Main Br, Strat ford — July 28/78 52,437.01 $79,655.53 $79,655.53 3.05 Moreover, from the amount of $52,437.01 deposited in the appellant’s bank account #518-598-8 at the Royal Bank, the appellant, on August 1, 1978, paid $20,000 to Stratford Truck Ltd as a loan. ...

Di Castri, The Law of Vendor and Purchaser, chapter 1, page 6; 6. CED (Western), Vol 5A, paragraph 425; 7. ...

Jack Di Cosimo v MNR, 5 Tax ABC 95; 51 DTC 372. 4.3 Comments It was pointed out earlier in this judgment that the burden of proof is on the appellant. ...

To complicate matters even more, the assessor added back an accrued amount previously dis allowed $12,000.00 Why he added to Income an amount which he had already disallowed is not clear. $12,849.00 In assessing appellant’s 1970 taxation year, the adjustments were as follows: Assessment Reported taxable income 30,368.00 of Aug. 25, Deduct: the add-back of accrued accts. 1972 of Dec. 31, 1968 12,000.00 18,368.00 Add: accrued salaries as at Dec. 31/70 considered to be a reserve 5,000.00 $23,368.00 In support of his appeal, counsel for the appellant contends that, having complied precisely with the procedure described in subsection 18(3), all the amounts established as accrued salaries for the appellant’s officers in the years 1968, 1969 and 1970 were properly accrued and are deductible in the year in which they were incurred. ...

The dis- cussion took place between Mrs Melzack, Mr Abramowitz, CA, who was representing the appellant, and a Mr G W Elliott, who reported to the Assistant Deputy Minister. ...

Dis agreement among principals led to com pany failure and lengthy legal suits. ...