Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

Miles to and from court 48 Miles @ 18 cents a mile X 180 Equals $ 8.64 Parking $ 1.75 Total per journey $10.39 Total court appearances X 243 Total travelling expenses $2524.77 In direct evidence and under cross-examination the appellant provided information that to the Board appears adequate and satisfactory on the major point dealing with the total of $2,524.77—how he could make 243 court appearances in one year, during his off-duty hours, while still performing his regular shift of work. ...

TDL 1972 1972 1973 1973 1974 1974 Legal fees of Gowling & Henderson — $16,500.00 $10,857.00 Legal fees of Hughes, Laishley $3,646.50 16,055.03 2,246.00 Fees paid to The Clarkson Company Limited — 39,055.47 — ACL 1972 1972 1973 1973 1974 1974 Legal fees of Gowling & Henderson $6,283.91 $ 3,000.00 $10,844.14 Legal fees of Hughes, Laishley 6,510.50 3,000.00 21,813.59 Further, the respondent assessed each individual appellant herein on the basis that legal expenses were incurred by each one qua shareholder and when same were paid by the company a benefit was conferred on the individual appellant and the benefit (being a pro rata of the legal fees paid by the company) was added to her or his declared income in accordance with the provisions of subsection 15(1) of the Income Tax Act. ... Gloria Assaly consulted Messrs Gowling & Henderson, as did Thomas C Assaly. ... The Local Master appointed Messrs Thorne, Gunn & Company (see Exhibit A-16). ...

The changes are as follows: 1975 Previous Support Payments $11,333 Revised Support Payments 7,200 Decrease $ 4,133 1976 Previous Support Payments $16,100 Revised Support Payments 7,200 Decrease $ 8,900 1977 Previous Support Payments $18,400 Revised Support Payments 7,200 Decrease $11,200 1978 Previous Support Payments $11,052 Revised Support Payments 7,200 Decrease $ 3,852 Mr Renwick essentially agreed with the testimony of Mrs Renwick but added that he had always felt new ag reements and arrangements had been made as a result of their conversations and he had regularly increased the payments to keep up with inflation and added expenses as the children grew older. ... However, in counsel’s opinion, even accepting any application of paragraph 60(b) (as proposed by counsel for the appellant) did not invalidate the Minister’s assessments — the only amounts deductible remained the basic $7,200 called for under either Exhibit A-1 or Exhibit A-2. ... In the instant case, the appearance of agreement for increased payments, and the reference material associated therewith, are not adequate to alter the basic agreements — either Exhibit A-1 or Exhibit A-2 — upon which the deductibility of the payments depend. ...

. $104,000 x.8548 = $88,899 or — assuming three years: $104,000 x.7903 $83,191 Per acre — $855, $790 I have difficulty in attributing to this transaction the same weight as was attributed to it by Mr Zezulka. ... As such, its future was deemed to be more agricultural, than as a potential subdivision site. 529.76 acres @ $600 = $317,856 160.00 acres @ $250 40,000 TOTAL- $357,856 Rounded to — $360,000 NOTE: Admittedly, the subject property has still to date not been subdivided. ... Quarter section having no frontage (160 acres x $250 per acre) $ 40,000.00 C. ...

As I see it, therefore the $810,000 was for all the physical assets involved — land and buildings (including the gas pumps). ... Also, I would emphasize that the Act is perfectly clear — the principal residence is the housing unit — and only the housing unit — anything beyond that is apparently a concession to practicality and reasonableness. ... I note, merely for the record, that the “access” allowed by the Minister was in fact a 66-foot wide road allowance — generous — perhaps over-generous — as a private right of way to the housing unit by any reasonable standard. ...

Les Faits 3.1 L’appelant, pendant les années 1970, 1971, 1972 et 1973, était gérant de succursale et agent d’assurance. 3.2 En produisant les déclarations d’impôt des années concernées, l’appelant à l’encontre de son revenu, réclama des dépenses dont certaines furent refusées tel que ci-après: Dépenses Dépenses Dépenses Revenu Reclamées Accordées Refusées 1970 $19,965.16 $ 9,347.54 $4,701.10 $4,646.44 1971 $20,462.26 $10,158.74 $4,814.71 $5,344.03 1972 $22,668.65 $11,079.27 $5,701.90 $5,377.37 1973 $33,198.04 $12,727.64 $7,014.73 $5,712.91 3.3 Suite à l’avis d’opposition du 19 novembre 1975, l’intimé en date du 28 avril 1976, adressa à l’appelant une demande de pieces justificatives relatives aux dépenses d’automobile et autres dépenses (publicité, souscription, etc). 3.4 L’appelant, selon lui, apporta alors un lot de boîtes comprenant 100% des pièces justificatives relatives à l’automobile et 90% des pièces justificatives relativement aux autres dépenses. 3.5 Dans une rencontre subséquente avec le préposé de l’intimé, l’appelant soutient qu’il lui affirma que le gérant de district n’avait pas droit aux dépenses. ... Ces pièces produites pour les quatre années comme exhibits A-2 à A-5 ont démontré les dépenses suivantes: 1970: $1,526.92 1971: $1,037.56 1972: $ 879.36 1973: $ 878.31 3.11 Relativement aux dépenses d’automobile, 100% des pièces justificatives ont été accordées mais le tout a été diminué de 40% en considération d’usage personnel. 3.12 Des mauvaises créances avaient été réclamées par l’appelant qui ont été refusées par l’intimé faute de pièces. L’intime réclame: 1970: $1,398 1971: $ 510 1972: $ 875 1973: $ 557.04 Ces mauvaises créances sont décrites ainsi par l’appelant dans ses états de revenu et dépenses: “mauvaises créances, primes pour clients avancées et perdues, bonis renversés”. ...

The respondent contended that: — the appellant was not, in 1973 or 1974, carrying on the farm Operation as a business or with a reasonable expectation of profit; — the amounts expended, if any, were not incurred to produce income but were personal or living expenditures of the appellant. Evidence The financial statement upon which the claim was based is reproduced for assistance: Income Hay $ 360.00 Gas Tax Refund 34.77 394.77 Expenses Automobile Expense $1,230.08 Less: Personal Use 30% 369.02 861.06 House Repairs 459.47 Power, Fuel, Telephone & Insurance 875.61 Property Taxes 499.28 1.834.36 Less: Personal Use 30% 550.31 1,284.05 Accounting and Legal 240.05 Supplies and Material 171.10 Tools 358.14 Machinery Expense 326.72 Repairs and Maintenance — Barn 280.20 Repairs and Maintenance —_— Fences 296.71 Seeds and Plants 67.70 Fertilizers 315.78 Custom Work 60.00 4,261.51 Farm Loss for the Year $3,866.74 Total Loss in 1974 3,866.74 Add Loss Carried Forward 805.56 4,672.30 Allowable 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,172.30 Allowable /2 1,086.15 1,086.15 Loss Carried Forward to 1975 1,086.15 Farm Loss for Tax Purposes in 1974 $3,586.15 The appellant described the circumstances to the Board in this manner: The reasons for ruling me not a farmer given to me by the income tax people are that I inherited the farm in 1969 and the only cattle purchased in 1973 were retained for approximately two (2) weeks. ... Copies of the financial statements for those years were filed with the Board, and they showed respectively the following loss amounts: 1973 — $3,305.56 1974 — $3,586.15 (amount in issue) 1975 — $3,727.29 1976 — $3,571.20 1977 — $3,576.68 Particulars of the details on these statements were readily and candidly supplied by the appellant to the Board. ...

The reply of the respondent noted: — The appellant’s wife conceived a child in the appellant’s 1978 taxation year which child was not born in that year; — The unborn child was not wholly dependent upon the appellant in the 1978 taxation year; — A conceived but unborn child is not a child within the meaning of paragraph 109(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act. ... Counsel for the respondent also dealt with the same three basic points: — “child” — did not include “fetus” for purposes of the Act. ... Particular emphasis was placed by counsel on the words I have underlined in the phrase immediately above. — “wholly dependent” — the father could not directly support the fetus, and accordingly the “unborn” child could not be wholly dependent upon him for support — particularly financial support. — “under 21 years of age” — the interpretation to be placed on this should be that the “years” commenced at birth, not at conception. ...

(b) The Appellant and his partner formed a company named A & B Office Equipment & Leasing Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the com- pany”). ... (b) The opening balance sheet of A & B Office Equipment & Leasing Company Limited as at March 31, 1971. (c) Notes to the opening balance sheet of A & B Equipment & Leasing Company Limited as at March 31, 1971. ...

The appellant produced as exhibit A-1 financial statements concerning the 1972, 1973 and 1974 taxation years in which the $50,000 appeared as an asset: “Investment loan Secor Industries—$50,000’’. 3.5 The appellant was the president of the two companies. 3.6 During the taxation years in question the appellant borrowed from Secor Industries Limited and reimbursed the following monies: Year Borrowed Repaid Repaid Amount Owing 1970 $11,113.42 $ 3,000.00 $ 8,113.42 1971 $11,663.42 $11,113.42 $ 550.00 These figures were admitted by the appellant. 3.7 During the taxation years in question, Anndean Holdings Ltd borrowed from Secor Industries Limited and reimbursed the following monies: Year Borrowed Repaid Repaid Amount Owing 1970 $22,215.45 $ 8,100.00 $14,215.45 1971 $32,215.45 $22,215.45 $10,000.00 As the appellant owns 50% of the common shares of the company, the respondent included in his income $7,057.72 in the 1971 taxation year and $5,000 in the 1972 taxation year. 3.8 According to Mr Noël Frenette, witness for the respondent, those figures had not been disputed by the appellant before. 3.9 According to the appellant, however, the amounts not paid by Anndean Holdings Ltd must in fact be considered as reimbursements made by Secor Enterprises Limited to Anndean Holdings Ltd on the loan of $50,000 made by Anndean Holdings Ltd (see paragraph 3.4). 4. ...