Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

His employer did not pay any of his expenses. 3.2 The appellant claimed various expenses for the years in question, part of which the respondent refused to allow, as set out in the following table: 1972 1973 1974 1975 Automobile expenses claimed $1,154.00 $1,564.00 $3,038.00 $2,925.00 refused 732.00 1,176.50 2,357.75 2,410.10 allowed $ 422.00 387.50 670.25 514.90 Entertainment expenses claimed $1,000.00 $4,700.00 $4,500.00 refused 800.00 4,400.00 4,200.00 allowed $ 200.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 3.3 There was also an expense of $2,595.80 for 1973 in connection with a restaurant owned by the appellant. ... During the years in question he made the following gross income from commissions and salary: Gross income Salary Salary 1972: $10,421.00 1973: $16,974.00 including $ 1,452.90 1974: $21,422.00 including $ 8,887.94 1975: $22,215.00 including $10,453.00 3.8 The appellant maintained that he used his car 10% for personal purposes and 90% for his work. ...

When the appellant was presented with a document, attached to an income tax return, entitled “Income Statement — Period January 1, 1974-December 31, 1974”, showing income from sales of houses, she said that this was an error on the part of the accountant, although her company had dealt with a reputable chartered accountant firm for years. ... As at December 31, 1972, the appellant was the owner in her own right, of 61 properties and the respondent, in his reply to notice of appeal, alleges that: (d) The appellant sold properties as follows: Number of Properties Total Total Total Total To tai Year Sold Sold Proceeds Costs Costs Gains Gains 1970 2 $ 26,200 $ 22,302 $ 3,898 1971 3 57,280 45,558 11,722 1972 4 74,560 62,134 12,516 1973 4 111,338 91,381 19,957 1974 1 26,500 15,500 11,000 1975 7 242,485 129,006 113,479 In all the years, excepting for the years in question, mainly 1973 and 1975, the appellant reported the profits from the sale of properties as income. ... The following cases were cited to me by the learned counsel for the appellant: Everlease (Ontario) Limited v MNR, [1968] Tax ABC 162; 68 DTC 180; Hiwako Investments Limited v The Queen, [1978] CTC 378; 78 DTC 6281; S & S Properties Ltd v The Queen, [1978] CTC 412; 78 DTC 6294, Regner Blok-Andersen v MNR, [1972] CTC 338; 72 DTC 6309. ...

Although there may exist some business advantages to be gained by their separate existence, there also exist some major fiscal advantages which, in my opinion, were seriously considered in making that arrangement. 19 In Annex B of Exhibit R-13, the following is recorded: Taxable Income 1967 1968 1969 1970 "WEE" $25,573.00 $19,461.00 $ 5,415.00 $33,992.00 "ABC" 24,439.00 35,874.00 28,457.00 25,353.00 "MONTREAL BABY"-- 4,607.00 16,962.00 21,167.00-------------------------------------------------- $50,012.00 $59,942.00 $50,834.00 $80,512.00 Additional Taxes Income taxable at 40% instead of 11% if subsection 138A(2) is applied on above income for 1967–68–69–70: 1967 $50,012.00 35,000.00---------- $15,012.00 @ 29% $ 4,353.00 1968 $59,942.00 35,874.00---------- $24,068.00 @ 29% 6,980.00 1969 $50,834.00 35,000.00---------- $15,834.00 @ 29% 4,592.00 1970 $80,512.00 55,159.00---------- $25,353.00 @ 29% 7,352.00---------- TOTAL TAXES INVOLVED $23,277.00 20 If subsection 138A(2) were applied and ABC Diaper Service Inc were to be associated with Wee Folks, the total tax payable would then be $23,277. ...

He incorporated a number of companies, of which the relevant ones are as follows: J Steenbakkers Lumber Limited — (retail sales) Capital Roof Truss (1969) Limited — (trusses) Valley Vu Realty (Ottawa) Limited — (construction) Steenbakkers Realties Limited — (land development) Iber Construction Limited — (construction) Ottawa Forest Products Ltd — (wholesale lumber) Steenbakkers had in mind that the appellant family company would acquire land and eventually construct a building of highest quality as a lasting investment. The appellant acquired five acres of land on Riverside Drive, in the City of Ottawa, Ontario, over a period of years as follows: 1964 — 1747 Riverside Drive for a cost of $21,019; 1971 — 1743 Riverside Drive for a cost of $40,000; 1972 — 1755-85 Riverside Drive for a cost of $546,687. ...

This point was admitted by the respondent. 3.13 The appellant’s contention is: Leasehold interest $10,602 Adjusted cost base $ 8,550 Capital gain $ 2,052 Taxable capital gain $1,026 Proceeds of goodwill includable in income $15,000 Section 21 ITAR 25% $3,750 $4,776 3.14 An appraisal report proving goodwill was not presented in testimony by the appellant. ... Canadian Petrofina Limited v P R Martin & City of St Lambert, [1959] RCS 453; 10. ... The computation of this subparagraph is $40,000 x 40% = $16,000. Consequently there is no excess ($16,000- $16,000) = 0). 21(1)(b) To the figure 0, result of subparagraph (a), must be added (notice the word “and” at the end of that subparagraph (a)) another amount—the one which is the result of subparagraph (b). ...

May 1975 $ 95.00 Dr C Peterson No 3. June 1975 $ 96.30 Hinton Carpet Service No 4. July 1975 $ 865.75 Patton’s Warehouse No (Freezer, washer & dryer) 5. ... August 1975 $ 582.52 McCutcheon’s Lumber No (Lumberyard) 9. October 1975 $ 700.00 B Richardson No 10. ...

As the book value of the property was $7,925 the increase in value is $ 10,075 2. ... As the book value of the buildings was $33,249 the increase in value is $ 22,751 3. ... Calgary Valuation Section M D Skapple March 19/80 SCHEDULE “A” Crescent Bakery Ltd Calculation of Adjusted Net Book Value as at December 31, 1971 Shareholders’ Equity — May 31, 1972 $64,418 Ada: Land — Appraised Value $18,000 — Cost 7,925 10,075 Building — Appraised Value $56,000 — Net Book Value 33,249 22,751 $97,244 Less: CCA Recapture Building 25% of 15,003 3,750 Adjusted Net Book Value — December 31/71 $93,494 Calculation of Liquidation Value Adjusted Net Book Value — per above $93,494 Deduct: Realization Expense Real Estate Commission $4,700 Liquidation loss on inventory receivable, equipment and autos 2,500 Tax on Distribution 1971 UIOH (15% of 64414 + 15003 — 3750) 11,350 18,550 Estimated Liquidation Value — December 31, 1971 $74,944 SCHEDULE “B" Crescent Bakery Ltd Calculation of Maintainable After Tax Earnings 1972 1971 Profit Before Tax 8,838 14,744 Less: Interest Income 337 Sundry Income 141 Rental Income 13,000 Adjusted Income Before Tax 8,360 1,744 Average Profit (10104 + 2) $ 5,050 Tax @ 25% 1,262 Maintainable After Tax Profit $ 3,788 Calculation of Fair Market Value on a Capitalization of Earnings Basis Maintainable After Tax Earnings — $ 3,788 Apply Multiples of 6 & 7 Low High 6 X 3788 22,728 7 X 3788 26,516 Fair Market Value $25,000 Since the results in his report were based on original cost for machinery and equipment, and an agreed upon valued for land and buildings, in Mr Skappie’s view it was reasonably accurate. ...

For the respondent: — The amount of $100,000* was set up as a liability and deducted as an expense in order to reduce the total amount of taxes payable by the appellant: (*The amount at issue in the appeal, the total was $110,000) — There was no contract or agreement between the appellant and the persons to whom the alleged bonus was owing and a bonus would be paid; — There was no contract of employment between the appellant and any person who was within the management category requiring the payment of the stated bonus; — With respect to the bonuses no expense was made or incurred for the purpose of gaining and producing income for the businesses; — The claim of the bonus expense, if it has been found to have been made or incurred unduly or artificially reduces the income of the appellant; — The appellant did not intend to create a legal obligation to pay the bonuses; — The claim of bonus payable as an expense was in effect a reserve which is not permitted by the Income Tax Act. Evidence Mr Edward R Easton, president of the appellant company, and Mr David Staley, CA, of Smith, Flynn, Staley & Co, testified for the appellant. ... However, there were certain critical factors introduced: — the financial statements for previous years indicated a similar process of “bonus” accrual had regularly taken place; the 1976 financial statements showed in part: Revenue $1,049,301.20 Expenses 794,376.62 Profit before undernoted $ 254,924.58 Add — Gain on sale of fixed assets 150,936.00 $ 405,860.58 Less — Management bonus 110,000.00 $ 295,860.58 — Mr Staley noted that it was the business policy of his firm that clients reduce corporate profits by the utilization of such accrued management bonuses where and when it was advantageous, so that such an accrual would bring the net taxable profit from active business below the small business limit. ...

This was comprised as follows: Sale Gross Project Closing Date Proceeds Profit E2 June 25, 1976 $ 48,574 $ 10,459 E9 June 30, 1976 75,450 10,743 E15 July 1, 1976 148,931 $ 29,480 $272,955 $ 50,682 House Sales (3) — made Apr. 1/76- July 1/76 $272,955 Lot Sale (1) — with a cost of $27,571 27,000 Renovations and Repairs 106,462 $406,417 (8) In January 1977, a nine month interim financial statement to December 31, 1976 was prepared for management and banking purposes. ... (D) The following inventory was owned by the company: Subdivision Lots — 31 $ 831,298 Unsold Houses — 17 956,319 48 $1,787,617 (12) To finance operations in the March 31, 1977 year the following funds had been utilized: Bank Loan $100,000 Realization of Agreement for Sale 150,000 Loans from Peter Brazolot 47,000 $297,000 (13) A management salary charge of $27,000 was made for the March 31, 1977 year. ... These are — The Queen v V & R Enterprises Limited, [1979] CTC 465; 79 DTC 5399; Toronto Heel Limited v M.N.R., [1980] CTC 2277; 80 DTC 1250. ...

The amounts claimed and disallowed in respect of each relative are set out in the following tables: 1977 Taxation Year Claimed Disallowed Sheik M Allim (Father in Guyana) $ 540.00 $ 540.00 Gladys Allim (Mother in Guyana) 415.00 415.00 Arlene Allim (Sister in England) 750.00 750.00 Mickford Durgana (Brother-in-law) 780.00 780.00 Sanchari Budram (Mother-in-law) 780.00 — Venoomattie Budram (Sister-in-law) 780.00 — $4,045.00 $2,485.00 2,485.00 Amount allowed by Respondent $1,500.00 1978 Taxation Year Claimed Disallowed Sheik M Allim $ 560.00 $ 560.00 Gladys Allim 430.00 430.00 Arlene Allim 840.00 840.00 Sanchari Budram 840.00 — Venoomattie Budram 840.00 — David Mallay (Cousin) 840.00 840.00 $4,350.00 $2,670.00 $2,670.00 Amount allowed by Respondent $1,680.00 1979 Taxation Year Claimed Disallowed Sheik M Allim $ 900.00 $ 900.00 Gladys Allim 910.00 910.00 — Disability Deduction 1,660.00 1,660.00 $3,470.00 $3,470.00 3,470.00 Amount allowed by Respondent 0 1980 Taxation Year Claimed Disallowed Sheik M Allim $ 990.00 $990.00 Gladys Allim 990.00 990.00 — Disability Deduction 1,810.00 1,810.00 $3,790.00 $3,790.00 3,790.00 Amount allowed by Respondent d) 3.02 In sum, the appellant is the son of Sheik M and Gladys Allim, the brother of Arlene Allim, the brother-in-law of Mickford Durgana and the cousin of David Mallay. 3.03 At the beginning of the hearing, the appellant informed the Board that he did not appeal the claim for his cousin David Mallay for his 1978 taxation year. ... Law — Cases at Law — Analysis 4.01 Law The main provisions of the Income Tax Act involved in the present case are paragraphs 109(1)(e) and (f), 110(1)(e) and subsection 252(2). ... The Board cannot take these facts into consideration. 4.03.2 Mickford Durgana — 1977 — $780 On this point with the adduced evidence, the Board has no hesitation to dismiss the appeal. ...