Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

We therefore propose to adjust 1973 as follows: Gas, Insurance, Repairs Claimed $ 675.32 Rentals Claimed 520.00 $1,195.32 Allow one-half Business use 597.66 Adjustment 1973 $ 597.66 Reassessment will be deferred for fifteen (15) days to allow you an opportunity to make any representations you feel necessary. ... Proposed settlement Office Advertising Gas, Oil (Sup- Breakdown of Taxable & Promotion Rentals & Repairs plies) Benefit 21.00 11.90 20.00 8.70 3.20 Health Care 30.00 59.95 28.30 20.00 6.60 4.25 Prizes 50.00 11.45? ... 16000 “Pers 22.10 160.00 7.30 14.90 34 12 Rentals 160.00 34.12 12.75 16.65 Standby charges 360.00 8.30 12.80 520.00 502.60 Schedule of Expenses Claimed Proven Non-allowable Advertising & promotion 520.30 502.60 17.70 Rentals 520.00 — 520.00 Office 34.12 34.12 — Travel 10.00 10.00 — Accounting 20.00 20.00 — Car expenses 696.32 679.72 16.60 Personal use 10% nil (67.97) 67.97 1800.74 1178.47 622.27 Expenses disallowed previously 597.66 Additional non-allowable expenses 24.61 Solution Based on above, the taxpayer should be disallowed some additional expenses. ...

Il admet que le rajustement de + 20% est aussi en partie subjectif et basé sur ses années d’expérience en matière d’évaluation. c) Accès et forme: + 15% Les deux accès tant sur le boulevard Laure que sur la rue Smith, et celle de 430 pieds sur le principal artère (boulevard Laure), sa forme régulière de rectangle lui fait accorder au terrain sujet un plus value' de 15% sur le terrain de la Société Delta Inc. ... La forme en L (qui peut- être n’est pas un inconvénient pour un hotel) est désavantageux par rapport au terrain sujet en vue du meilleur usage qu’on veut en faire. d) Superficie: + 15% Le terrain sujet avec ses 93,000 pi ca avait la dimension idéale, selon M Renaud, pour usage le meilleur et le plus avantageux. Il a été souligné, entre autres, qu’un tel terrain aurait été trop petit pour une station de service dont la superficie idéale est 25,000 pi ca. 3.19 Tous ces rajustements donnent le résultat suivant: $2 + 55% soit (5% + 20% + 15% + 15%) $3.10. ...

. $125,000 Less principal residence 62,500 $ 62,500 Less Adjusted Cost Base $53,860 50% of outlays & expenses of $9,513.50 4,757 58,617 3,833 Less reserve 2,517 Total Capital Gain 1,366 Taxable Capital Gain $ 683 4. ... Proceeds of Sale of Black Creek Property $125,000.00 Less principal residence Land $20,000 House $17,000 37,000.00 Shed 200.00 37,200.00 $ 87,800.00 Less Adjusted Cost Base Land $50,000 50,000.00 70% of total outlays & expenses 6,659.80 56,659.80 Gain on disposition $ 31,140.20 Less Reserve 20,926.21 Total Capital Gain $ 10,213.99 Taxable Capital Gain $ 5,107.00 The question to be decided is whether the value of the appellant’s residence, shed and residential acreage is $62,500 or one-half of the total selling price of the whole property as claimed by the appellant or whether the value of the residence, shed and acreage is $37,200 claimed by the respondent. ... Allocated land $50,000 Residence $16,500 Total $66,500 In July 1,1975 the Allocated land $102,450 Residence $ 22,550 Total $125,000 In computing the capital gain realized from the disposition of the subject, the Minister used a fair market value of not less than $87,000 for the land as of August 1, 1975 allowing a value of $37,200 for the principal residence, 4 acres of land and the shed. ...

Medical practitioner’s automobile and telephone expenses — Farming losses. ... Dr Todd, having left British Columbia to take up residence in California, did not appear in person before the Board at the hearing of his appeal, but one Peaker, administrative officer of The R B White Clinic — and himself an orchardist — testified that he had been requested by Dr Todd to review and assess the prospects of the farm before the appellant acquired it in 1964. ... A statement filed as Exhibit R-2 discloses the treatment accorded the loss claimed as a deduction by Dr Todd to have been as follows: Claimed Allowed Disallowed Taxes and Water $ 394.06 Irrigation Water — Allow 100% of $50.00 $ 50.00 Taxes —Allow 25% of $344.06 $ 86.01 $ 258.05 Insurance (not crop insurance) 4.14 Disallow 100% Nil 4.14 Electricity 164.89 Disallow 100% Nil 164.89 Interest (on purchase of property) 1,473.31 Allow 25% 368.32 1,104.99 Simca Car Expenses and Capital Cost Allowance (Wife’s car) 341.02 Disallow 100% Nil 341.02 Dwelling Repairs & Depreciation 543.31 Disallow 100% Nil 543.31 Total Disallowance $2,416.40 Thus the total of $504.33 allowed was said to relate to wages and tree-removal costs and other matters directly related to the orchard, and bore a definite relation to the earning of such income as the orchard had been able to produce. ...

Said Exhibit reads as follows: Dr Anthony Youatt 1973 Interest Dr Anthony Youatt Agreement of sale—Lockwood $2,405.80 Demand Loan—CIBC 520.14 Service charges and Overdraft interest expense 55.75 C/U Loans personal to pay income tax and pay Avco for personal living expenses Capital Loan $4,492.07 May 2,1972 $14,000 ($7,000 to pay Income Tax and balance for lots and over-run costs of residence) Sept 24,1972 8,000 (Furnish and redecorate clinic office) Oct 16,1972 12,000 ($7,000 operating expenses and $5,000 down payment building) March 8,1973 8,000 (Cover overdraft and expenses)(Unable to work) Aug 23,1973 11,000 (Consolidate loans and credit card balances outstanding $4,000) $53,000 Personal Loans — % x interest Total Loans $14,000 26.4% x $4,492.07 $53,000- personal $1,185.91 Allowable 3,306.16 $6,287.85 Claim $7,134.00 Allowable 6,287.85 Adjustment required $ 846.16 DD/car May 13, 1977 cc O C Ramstead 1974 Interest Agreement of sale—Lockwood—1 month $ 196.00 Demand loan—CIBC 749.48 Service charges and Overdraft interest 1,046.57 C/U—personal loan taxes and Avco personal living Longterm interest (Accrued payable) Dec 31/74 $5,775.15 Longterm interest (Paid during year) 1,518.85 $7,294.00 Oct 28,1974 $8,750.00 ($500 RRSP interest payment capital loan $159.33 + $222.36 balance personal for 1972 and 1973 income taxes) Therefore, $7,868.31 personal. Personal loans /o x interest Total loans $21,868.31 = 35.4% x $7,294.00- $2,582.08 $61,750.00- personal $2,582.08 4,711.92 Total Allowable $6,703.97 Total claimed 5,218.00 Allow additional $1,485.97 Accrued interest payable Dec 27/74 $5,684.35 Accrued interest 4 days @ $22.70 90.80 Accrued interest to Dec 31/74 $5,775.15 DD/car May 13, 1977 cc O C Ramstead Demand loan CIBC $ 395.06 S/C and Overdraft—interest 207.63 Nipawin C/U—loans personal Capital loan (Accrued in terest payable) Dec 31/75 *$8,378.02 Capital loan (Interest paid during year) 2,132.41 $10,510.43 Jan 20/75 $6,225.07 Interest capitalized 35.4% per sonal ($2,203.67) Oct 21/75 31.75 Interest capitalized Nov 20/75 3,910.00 Operating loan Personal loans % x interest Total loans $24,071.98 34.9% x $10,510.43 = $3,668.14 $71,916.82- personal portion $ 3,668.14 6,842.29 Total interest allowable $ 7,444.98 Total interest claimed 14,962.00 Adjustment required $ 7,517.02 **Total accrued, interest to Dec 31/75 $14,153.17 —Accrued interest to Dec 31/74 5,775.15 *$ 8,378.02 Accrued interest to Jan 9/76 $14,357.47 — Accrual rate ($22.70 x 9) 204.30 (used same as 1974) **$14,152.17 DD/car May 13, 1977 cc O C Ramstead It will be seen in the 1973 taxation year that the sum of $2,000 was determined from the ledger sheets of the Bank to be personal expenses covering income tax and the balance was for payment of lots adjacent to the residence of Dr Youatt. ... A portion of this statement reads as follows: 1973 $25000- $360.13 x $4492.07 = $52639.87 Personal portion of interest $2,100.94 Business portion of interest 2,391.13 $4,492.07 ^^ J- x $7294.00- 52% of $7294 $61389.87 Personal portion of interest $3,792.88 Business portion of interest 3,501.12 $7,294.00 1975 $32868.31- $360.13 x $10510-43 $65331.62 Personal portion of interest $5,150.11 Business portion of interest 5,360.32 $10,510.43 According to this witness, this portion of the calculations shows the loan (which is a personal loan of $25,000), less personal repayments over the total loans outstanding, times the interest payable in that calendar year, and he thus derived the personal portion of the interest expense. ...

In arriving at these assessments the Minister of National Revenue included the following amounts in his calculation of the appellant’s income: 1972 — $28,488 1973 — $35,569 1974 — $40,667 1975 — $57,051 During the taxation years 1972 to 1975 inclusive the appellant was a shareholder in “Placements J M Chaput Ltée”, a company which held the majority of the shares of “Permanse Ltéé” (“Permanse”), which, in turn, had acquired all of the shares of “Stafex Ltée” (“Stafex”). ... The products or services — training courses, motivational lectures and so on — are the property of the companies and are given by Jean-Marc Chaput, Art Woodhouse, Donald Sproule and the other employees or shareholders. ...

She testified, in effect, as follows: that — I put my contact lenses in around 6.00 P.M. ... Income Tax Act, RSC 1952, c 148 — 12(1)(h), 139(1)(ae) — Farming losses — The appellant, who was employed full-time as a foreman of Douglas Aircraft, sought to deduct amounts of $1,250.97 and $1,815.86 for the years 1967 and 1968 in respect of certain farm property held in partnership with one other. ... Income Tax Act, RSC 1952, c 148 — 11(1)(i) — Registered pension plan — Since 1944 the appellant had always been a participating member of his employer’s registered pension plan. ...

It should read as follows: Wages $15,000.00 ITD $ 3,751.40 CPP $ 120.60 UIC $ 134.68 PR Creations Unlimited Ltd was placed in receivership Oct 17/1975, and the attached T4 slip was prepared by the receiver, Mr S J Down of Thorn Riddell & Co Winnipeg. ... Yet, the Court reached the conclusion that Coopers & Lybrand had not deducted as required by subsection 153(1) of the Act. ... In Coopers & Lybrand (supra) both forms (b) & (c) showed that the deduction at issue had been made—and yet the Court did not regard that evidence as determinative. ...

Act — case law — analysis 5.01 A ct The chief sections of the Income Tax Act that apply in the case at bar are section 3, paragraph 8(1)(f), section 9, paragraph 18(1)(h) and section 67; these will be cited where necessary. 5.02 Case law The case law cited by the appellant is as follows: 1. ... Miron & Frères Ltée v MNR, [1955] CTC 182; 55 DTC 1109; and 3. RWS Johnston v MNR, [1948] CTC 195; 3 DTC 1182. 5.03. ... Nor can the Board ignore the formal notices — letters written to the appellant in 1970 and 1972 — concerning the supporting documents that were to be kept (paragraph 4.15). ...

He further added to and reduced income from fees, as appears below and these amounts are on appeal 1973 1974 1974 1975 1975 (a) 1st reassessment Unreported fees $15,452.75 $2,340.24 $2,710.00 (b) 2nd reassessment Reduction of fees ($ 2,691.19) (1,046.26) Addition to fees $1,053.08 $12,761.56 $1,293.98 $3,763.08 3.04 The appellant testified that the reported income was compiled based on two ordinary bank accounts and a bank account in trust. ... Act — case law — comments 4.1 Act The legal provisions concerned in the case at bar are ss 3, 9 and 34 of the Income Tax Act. ... The amount by which the income was reduced — namely $11,661.56 ($12,761.56 less $1,200 ($400 + $700) = $11,661.56)- is sufficiently large to indicate more than ordinary negligence, that is, gross negligence. 5. ...