Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

., Government of Canada bonds with: — serial numbers of F56 000450 and F56 000972 — combined face value $30,000 — accrued interest $977.26 — maturity date of December 15, 1975 (b) The taxpayer borrowed, from the Bank of B.C., by way of a demand promissory note, and secured by the above bonds, sufficient funds to purchase the bonds. ... In response to your letter of May 6, 1980, we confirm the following transactions relative to the subject bond purchase: November 26, 1975 Loan advanced for the purchase of Government of Canada Bonds Heather Jensen $15,495.38 Claus Jensen $30,984.01 November 27, 1975 Government of Canada Bonds (Bearer) Lodged in support of loan Heather Jensen Serial #F56 000969 #F56 000970 #F56 000971 3 @ $ 5,000.00 Claus Jensen Serial #F56 000972 #F56 000450 1 @ $ 5,000.00 1 / $25,000.00 December 15, 1975 Above bonds redeemed and loan retired from proceeds. ...

Two notes appear at the bottom of this financial statement, and read as follows [translation]: Note 1 — This financial statement has been prepared for tax purposes only. Note 2 — Mr Eustache Laflamme sold his farm on November 1, 1976 to his sons Does and Germain. 3.12 The appellant’s balance sheet is also attached to the return. ... Act — case law — analysis 4.01 Act Sections 3, 9(1) and 10(1) of the Income Tax Act are the principal legislative provisions involved in the case at bar. ...

To demonstrate that the project was seriously considered, Mr Dumas submitted stationery with the letterhead ‘Place Henri IV’’ and a list of expenses (Exhibit A-17): EXPENSES 1—Robert Morin (accountant) $ 4.000.00 2—Begin, Charland, Valiquette (appraisers) $ 3.235.58 3—Duval, Grenier, Taschereau (notary) $ 2,580.00 4—School and municipal taxes $ 27,130.32 5—St-Gelais, Tremblay, Tremblay and L'Abbé (architect) $ 12,495.16 6—Cossette and Associates $ 145.42 7—André Blanchet (lawyer) $ 43,000.00 8—Thron, Group and Co (accountant) $ 4,435.36 9—Travel expenses, accommodation and meals $ 3,133.06 10—Lease with Wilfred Légaré Inc $ 665.00 TOTAL $100.819.90 On September 22, 1969 Mr Dumas received a letter from Mr Gauv- reau telling him that Eaton’s was not interested in locating in Quebec City; he further learned that Simpsons-Sears was moving into the Laurier Project. ...

The data given in his report was as follows: (3) Lot 149 —4.5 acres — No buildings — Unserviced — Located in the South East portion, or Lakeview subdivision —Sold in 1971 for $26,000 —Sale price per acre—$5,777.87 (4) Lots 29 & 30, Plan Lethbridge 4368K — 10.0 acres — No building — Unserviced — Located in Lakeview subdivision, this parcel was subdivided and developed in 1972 —Sold in 1972 for $65,000 —Sale price per acre—$46,500 (sic) (5) Lots 1 to 20, Block 7, Plan 6799 JK —4.60 acres (net) — No buildings — Unserviced — Located in Lakeview subdivision, this property was surveyed for development prior to sale and was developed into twenty (20) residential building lots —Sold in 1972 for $40,000 —Sale price per acre—$8,675.65 No “3” was sold pursuant to an agreement of sale, the terms of which were not disclosed. ...

In assessing the appellant for the 1978 taxation year, the respondent, the Minister of National Revenue, relied on the following facts, inter alia: (a) The appellant’s net income for each of the 1974 to 1978 taxation years was as follows: 1974 $250,910 1975 $ 30,762 1976 $ 32,298 1977 $ 35,568 1978 $ 42,764 (b) For the 1978 taxation year the appellant did the general averaging tax calculation on form T-2077; (c) In his 1978 general averaging tax calculation, the appellant erroneously used the tax tables instead of the 1978 rates of federal income tax; (d) The appellant’s basic federal tax for the 1978 taxation year computed using general averaging is $9,487.61, the same amount as the appellant’s basic federal tax computed using the 1978 rates of federal income tax provided for in section 117 of the Income Tax Act: (e) It is of no advantage to the appellant to use general averaging in computing the tax he owes for the 1978 taxation year. 3. ... Act — Analysis 4.01 Act The principal provisions involved in this case are sections 117 and 118. ...

The gross farming income from 1969 to 1977 is as follows (Exhibit A-27): 1969 Rent $ 1,400 1970 Rent $ 2,250 1971 Rent $ 4,525 1972 Rent $ 3,225 1973 Sales $13,025 1974 Sales $ 8,025 1975 ’? ’? 1976 Sales $ 7,770 1977 Sales $ 4,700 3.37 Neil Young also explained that in 1970/1971 he obtained a licence for and operated a snowmobile sports ranch. ... On the plan was also printed the following: Phase I — Royal Highland Estates — 40 lots (min. size — 2 acres) begin 1971 — 100 acres Phase II — Royal Highland Golf & Country Club — 18 hole course — begin 1973 — 160 acres Mr Neil Young testified on the one hand that he personally prepared the plan, and on the other hand that he did not know what the inscription concerning “Phase I” and “Phase II’’,, and even the figure of “260 acres” meant. ...

Miss Osier, an officer of Revenue Canada, filed with the Board (no objection was raised by the appellant’s agent) a copy of a letter (Exhibit R-1) which read as follows: the Permanent Canada Permanent Trust Company Canada Permanent Mortgage Corporation 320 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M5H 2P6 Telephone (416) 361-8415 April 17, 1979 Mrs Hutchinson Appeals Division Director-Taxation 150 Main Street W Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3E1 Re: Retirement Savings Plans # 077617 & # 077649 Margaret Copeland (sic) Dear Mrs Hutchinson: As per our telephone conversations, this letter is to confirm that Retirement Savings Plan # 077617 was redeemed as at January 1977, at which time, a T4RSP was issued to Margaret Copeland for the amount of $990. As well, Retirement Savings Plan # 077649 was redeemed as at March 1,1977 and issued a T4RSP for $4,047.58. ... Yours truly, (Sgd) P Yama Patricia Yama Customer Services Administrator Retirement Savings & Fund Services /py In addition, Miss Osier filed a copy of the taxpayer’s 1976 income tax return in which had been included as income an amount of $495 similar to the amount in question in this appeal. ...

. $1.00 $ 6.00 36,000 — class A Pfd. 1,000 1002 class B Pfd. P.V. $1.00 1,002.00 $ 1,008.00 Earned Surplus 173,767.52 174,775.52 $490,766.36 The balance sheet was audited and certified correct by Mintz and Mintz, Chartered Accountants. ... At all relevant times during the 1964 taxation year, the issued class B preferred shares were held as follows: 167 shares — Saul Mintz 167 shares — Ernest Dicker 1 share — Ettie Wosnick as nominee for Saul Mintz 1 share — Sari Dicker as nominee for Ernest Dicker 666 shares — Samuel N Shapiro (if not in his name, beneficially owned) 1002 total shares authorized and issued For several years Messrs Shapiro, Mintz and Dicker had worked closely together in directing the affairs of the appellant company and, for all practical purposes, constituted a board of directors, although-neither Mintz nor Dicker were in fact appointed directors, preferring to work through Ettie Wosnick and Sari Dicker as nominees. ...

Antonio Gaspar t ($532.55) Santos \ ($532.54) ($1,065.09) Exhibit A-5 ANTONIO GASPAR OPERATING AS LAKEVIEW FRUIT MARKET BALANCE SHEET AS AT DECEMBER 31, 1972 Assets Current Bank Account—CIBC #69132 426.41 Prepaid Finance—Truck 206.03 Due from SANTOS 532.54 $ 1,164.98 Fixed Accumulated Cost Depreciation Land $19,552.45 — 19,552.45 Building 40,233.75 — 40,233.75 Truck (EE) 1,510.00 — 1,510.00 $61,296.20 $61,296.20 $62,461.18 Liabilities Current Bank Account—B of M—#1017-307 659.91 Note Payable—Truck (EE) 439.60 1,099.51 Long-Term Mortgage payable—Dundas property (DD) 39,452.94 Mortgage payable—Beaconsfield property (DD1) 19,917.45 59,370.39 60,469.90 Proprietor's Equity CAPITAL — Balance—Beginning of period 5,496.35 — Net loss for the period-_ (3,372.07) — Drawings for the period (133.00) 1,991.28 $62,461.18 (#2) ANTONIO GASPAR OPERATING AS LAKEVIEW. ... 800.00 $2,634.57 NET (LOSS) FROM OPERATIONS ($6,012.07) Rental Income 2,640.00 NET (LOSS) FOR THE PERIOD ($3,372.07) Exhibit R-8 Santos Schedule JOSE M SANTOS AND ANTONIO GASPAR Summary of Unreported Income from the SALES PER SALES JOURNAL $84,973.30 — Grape sales per Profit and Loss Statement— September 18 to October 28-72 82,264.10 — Sale of other fruits—Bananas—Unreported 2,709.20 ADD — Grape income for Sept 18 to October 28-72 Statement $ 7,832.68 — Cash sales of grapes and other income not included in sales of $84,973.20 per actual invoices—WP-2 10,056.79 — Sale of wine bottles per Aug 9—Sept 8/72 Statement 1,186.14 — Inventory of wine—Aug 9-Sept 8-72 Statement *$ 2,454.10 Deemed sold (485 bottles or barrels) be tween Sept 9-Sept 17 1972 since no inventory is noted on Sept 18-Oct 28 statement AND NOT INCLUDED IN SALES of $84,973.30 per 100% audit of invoices- entered in Sales Journal—Cost of inventory per WP is 3.50 per case (bottle or barrel). ... UNREPORTED INCOME $25,451.41 LESS Additional Expenses allowed per WP-1 3,278.42 TOTAL UNREPORTED INCOME $22,172.99 GASPAR 50% $11,086.49 SANTOS 50% $11,086.50 SCHEDULE (4) ANTONIO GASPAR INCOME EARNED IN 1972 FROM OCTOBER 29 TO DECEMBER 31, 1972 BANK DEPOSITS—CIBC 836 Dundas St & Euclid acct #69132 October 30 $ 3,758.55) 30 10,860.00) November 3 11,945.93) 6 4,611.83) 10 1,384.75) 15 625.00) T/P stated that money came from 27 615.75) business 3-9-75 conversation December 4 50.00) 4 919.25) 11 339.00) 14 224.20) 27 361.75) TOTAL DEPOSITS $35,696.01 Cost of inventory—Grapes—Oct 29-1972 per statement $ 6,975.20 Purchases — MacKay & Hughes Ltd— Cheques Nov 23 1972 $2,190.00 Nov 30 1972 2,320.00 — Specialty Fruit Co Ltd Cheque Nov 17 1972 90.00 4,600.00 Total available for sale $11,575.20 Less Dec 31, 1972 inventory NIL Cost of goods sold $11,575.20 GROSS PROFIT $24,120.81 DEDUCT—Additional expenses for 2 months WP SCH 6 1,063.18 $23,057.63 SCHEDULE (5) In reviewing this appeal, the Board is conscious of the fact that the fundamental responsibility for filing correct income tax information, and making available appropriate supporting documentation rests with the taxpayer, and many aspects of the evidence brought out put into serious question the extent to which Mr Gaspar fulfilled that role. ...

In assessing the Appellant for the 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1978 taxation years, the Respondent relies among others on the following assumptions of facts: (a) During the years under appeal, the Appellant operated a ladieswear boutique under the name “Boutique Bela”; (b) An analysis of the taxpayer’s bank statements and cheques demonstrated higher deposits than reported sales and also substantial increase in business assets with no increase in liabilities; (c) Since the Appellant did not keep adequate books and records, the Respondent proceeded to establish the Appellant’s true income on a net worth basis for the said years; (d) By Notices of reassessments dated April 11, 1980 for the 1975 taxation year and dated June 30, 1981 for the other years under appeal, the Respondent included in the computation of the Appellant’s income additional amounts of income resuting from the net worth thereby establishing the following amounts of unreported income: 1975: $ 7,387.99 1976: $19,088.16 1977: $16,935.64 1978: $38,243.61 (e) The Appellant was unable to establish that any of the above figures were incorrect, that part of the said amount did not constitute income or should not be assessed as such for each of the years under appeal; (f) The Appellant, under circumstances amounting to gross negligence, omitted to declare the amounts stated in sub-paragraph (e) in filing his tax returns for the taxation years under appeal which justifies the imposition of a penalty for each of the said years and pursuant to sub-section 163(2) for the following amounts: 1975: $ 190.60 1976: $ 561.68 1977: $ 748.76 1978: $2,136.85 The appellant contends that the conciliation of capital failed to take into account the following gifts: 1976 1977 1978 $1,000 $25,732 $31,386 At the hearing, the field auditor, who prepared the net worth assessment, testified that at the time of his investigation he did not discover any unreported sales and was told that the appellant had received various amounts of money from his father. ...