Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

In the computation of income he claimed the following amounts as deductions and was disallowed the amounts hereafter indicated. 1975 1975 Amount Amount ITEM Claimed Disallowed Accounting $ 10.00 $ Advertising 55.13 Automobile 2,029.78 1,824.48 Business Tax, Licences, Fees 10.00 Office Expenses, Postage 44.79 44.79 Home Office 460.59 400.59 SUBTOTAL $2,610.29 $2,269.86 Less: Personal Use — Auto 811.91 811.91 TOTAL $1,798.38 $1,457.95 Amount Amount ITEM Claimed Disallowed Accounting, Legal, Collection $ 50.00 Advertising 545.75 $ 495.75 Automobile 3,052.31 2,833.06 Business Tax, Fees, Licences 10.00 Fire & Liability Insurance 10.02 10.02 Interest, Exchange, Bank Charges 655.89 655.89 Maintenance & Repairs 313.73 269.72 Office Expenses 15.99 Property Taxes 87.10 87.10 Telephone, Light, Heat 131.18 131.18 SUBTOTAL $4,871.97 $4,482.72 Less: Personal Use — Auto 1,220.92 1,220.92 TOTAL $3,651.05 $3,261.80 The appellant was a draftsman. ...

Votre tout dévoué, (Signature) Service des Cotisations /g P Pièce 1-3 FBI Foods Ltd. 1610 de Beauharnois Montréal, Québec HAN 1J5 le 12 septembre 1975 Directeur de l’impôt 305 Ouest Blvd Dorchester Montréal, Québec Re: M André Corriveau NAS 206-785-057 Faisant suite à votre requête du 29 Août veuillez trouver ci-dessous les informations concernant l’employé mentionné plus haut: — Date d’entrée à notre service: 1957 approximativement. — Titre: Vice-Président (Ventes-Relations Publiques). — Rémunération: Salaire Fixe. —Territoire Couvert: Province Québec, Ottawa Valley, Maritimes. — Une automobile lui était fournie par la Compagnie pour l’exercise de ses fonctions; les dépenses concernant l’automobile étaient à la charge de la Compagnie. ...

(SN pp 8 and 9) 3.07 Mr Moore also spoke to Mr Boddy of Marsh & McLennan Limited: In talking to Mr Boddy at — Mr Boddy is with Marsh & McLennan, I spoke to them to try to determine what service if any Mr McMillan had provided to them. ... He said that the appellant had to hold a valid insurance broker’s license: Because we — we felt that — we were treating it as a sub-agent. ... Law — Cases at law — Analysis 4.01. Law section 3 of the Income Tax Act is the section involved in the present case. 4.02. ...

It was established by the appellant at the hearing of this appeal that the sum of $2,223.19 is made up as follows: Accrued interest to March 1, 1975 $ 197.32 Accrued dividends to March 1, 1975 429.21 Remainder of appellant’s contribution 81.15 Increase in value of shares 1,515.51 TOTAL $2,223.19 As stated above, the appellant is a long-time employee of Shell Canada Ltd. ... Accordingly, the appellant received a statement from the plan, dated September 30, 1975 which he annexed to his notice of appeal as “Attachment Ill” and which reads as follows: SHELL SAVINGS FUND STATEMENT OF WITHDRAWAL AS AT SEP 30/75 S J POWELL EMPLOYEE NUMBER 5940 DALMEAD ORES NW 113457 CALGARY, ALTA TBA 1 E6 SAVINGS PLAN Latest member balance $ 674.39 Interest Earned in current year 33.29 Total savings plan 707.68 SHELL STOCK PLAN 312 Shares issued @ 16.6250 $5187.00 Shares sold @ Total Shell stock plan 5187.00 TOTAL VALUE OF WITHDRAWAL 5894.60 CALCULATION OF TAXABLE BALANCE Total value of withdrawal as above $5894.68 Less net tax paid contributions: Cumulative member contributions $9175.00 Minus: Cumulative withdrawals 5503.51 Net tax paid amount 3671.49 Gross taxable balance 2223.19 Less transfers to: — RRSP F with — Additional Pension Plan Net Taxable balance $2223.19 DETAILS OF PAYMENT Transfers as above CR Federal tax @ 10% of net taxable balance 222.320R Provincial tax @ % of net taxable balance CR Value of 312 shares to be delivered 5187.000R AMOUNT OF CHEQUE NO J4528 ATTACHED $ 485.36 The appellant stated at the hearing that this represented the 40% of his accumulated contribution to date of discontinuance. ... Article XVIII reads as follows: ARTICLE XVIII — NON-ALIENATION OF RIGHTS Except as otherwise provided in the Regulations, no moneys or securities Standing to the credit of any Member under the provisions of the plan shall be capable in whole or in part of anticipation, alienation, surrender, sale, transfer, assignment, pledge, encumbrance, or charge, and any attempt so to anticipate, alienate, surrender, sell, transfer, assign, pledge, encumber, or charge the same shall be void; nor shall any such: moneys or securities be in any manner liable for or subject to the debts, contracts, liabilities, engagements, or torts of any Member. ...

As Mr RS W Fordham, Assistant Chairman of the former Tax Appeal Board wrote in “Tax Appeal Board Practice, 3rd Edition” on that specific point, accepting the decision of the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in Dixon & Gaunt Ltd and James Hare Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, [1947] 1 All ER 723; (1947), 29 Tax Cases 289, and cited in Ambassador Ventures cited above at 1234: In short, the Crown must make out a prima facie case in first instance. ... This sum was reimbursed before the end of the fiscal year; (c) paid for material, supplies and rent on Covertite (Ontario) Limited’s behalf in the amount of $6,500. 5.18 The taxable income of the appellant is as follows in the taxation years ending on the indicated dates: Jan. 31/67 $34,833.23 Jan. 31/68 $34,831.36 Jan. 31/69 $35,000 Jan. 31/70 $33,101 Jan. 31/71 $ 4,070 Dec. 30/71 $34,502 Dec. 30/72 $50,015 5.19 The salaries and bonuses paid by the appellant to Mr Albert Warner have totalled the following in the taxation years ending on the indicated dates: Jan. 31/67 $ 16,040 Jan. 31/68 $ 27,021 Jan. 31/69 $ 24,034 Jan. 31/70 $ 10,011 Jan. 31/71 Nil Dec. 30/71 $ 65,275 Dec. 30/72 $145,673 5.20 The combined taxable incomes of the appellant and Covertite (Ontario) Limited were as follows for the taxation years terminating on the indicated dates: Dec. 30/71 $62,315 Dec. 30/72 $70,907 5.21 The appellant’s opinion concerning incidence of tax is expressed in Exhibit R-4, page 4: Also an analysis of the tax position of the two companies would readily indicate that there was never any attempt to minimize the taxes payable by the use of the two corporate entities, but just the reverse. ... The list is as follows: Doris Trucking Company Limited v MNR, [1968] CTC 303; 68 DTC 5204; Jordans Rugs Ltd et al v MNR, [1969] CTC 445; 69 DTC 5290; Holt Metal Sales of Manitoba Limited and Industrial Metals Processing Limited v MNR, [1970] CTC 144; 70 DTC 6108; MNR v Howson & Howson Limited and Howson & Howson Company (Cargill) Limited, [1970] CTC 36; 70 DTC 6055; C P Loewen Enterprises Ltd v MNR, [1972] CTC 396; 72 DTC 6298; Classic’s Little Books Inc v Her Majesty the Queen, [1973] CTC 94; 73 DTC 5096; Her Majesty the Queen v Bobbie Brooks (Canada) Limited, [1973] CTC 431; 73 DTC 5357; Capital Garment Co Inc v MNR, [1974] CTC 2199; 74 DTC 1164; Miss Sun Valley Limited v MNR, [1974] CTC 2274; 74 DTC 1217; Kitchener News Leaseholds Limited and Kitchener News Company Limited v MNR, [1974] CTC 2305; 74 DTC 1226; Industrial Trailer Rentals Limited v Her Majesty the Queen, [1974] CTC 775; 74 DTC 6577; ABC Diaper Service Inc v MNR, [1975] CTC 2087; 75 DTC 66; Jordan Holdings Ltd et alv MNR, [1975] CTC 2287; 75 DTC 216; Her Majesty the Queen v Arthill Enterprises Limited, [1975] CTC 594; 75 DTC 5419; Sandell Developments Ltd and Grid Holdings Ltd v MNR, [1976] CTC 2393; 76 DTC 1293; Her Majesty the Queen v Ball Brothers Limited, [1976] CTC 793; 77 DTC 5004. 6.3 Comments 6.3.1 Points pro & contra After studying the law and the jurisprudence, the Board thinks that it is best to draw up the points which prima facie are pro and con the appellant according to the evidence adduced. 6.3.2 The points in favour of the appellant The following facts support the appellant’s thesis: 1) Mrs Warner’s decision to invest outside Quebec in 1969 (paragraphs 5.09 and 5.10 of the Facts) whatever her opinion, is well founded or not concerning the political situation of the Province of Quebec and school problems; 2) The fact that the new corporation was located in Ontario and consequently not in the same working territory as the appellant company (the fact that sometimes one works in the territory of the other is immaterial), (see paragraph 5.11 of the Facts); 3) The fact of the complete separated business (paragraph 5.13 of the Facts); 4) The fact of the presence in Ontario of the experienced Mr McKissock (paragraphs 5.08 and 5.11 of the Facts). 6.3.3 The points against the appellant The following facts support the respondent’s thesis: 1) The ownership by Mrs Warner (the only shareholder of Covertite (On- tario(Limited) of one share of the appellant company from 1958 to 1971; 2) Mrs Warner borrowing $9,006 from her husband (the main shareholder of the appellant company). ...

The appellant purchased the farm in 1976 for a price of approximately $155,000 allocated as follows: Land — $99,500 Buildings — 29,000 Equipment — 15,500 Cattle — 11,000 Since purchasing the farm, the appellant has cleared and “tiled” 48 acres which were uncleared at the time of purchase, and now utilizes the total of 100 acres in growing crops and looking after his cattle. ... The single and sole word “income” does not lose its basic value as “profit” or “gain” — (the opposite to “loss”) — just because it may be used as part of the term “source of income”. ... Economic reality did not, and still does not, provide the major motivation for this appellant’s dedication to the farm — it remains, as indicated, a sideline business no matter how substantial in size when compared with his chief source of income — his employment. ...

. —... the Appellant has not established that the payments being the subject of the 109(1)(f) claim were actually made in any bona fide manner, accordingly no such deductions should be allowed. ... Findings As I understand it, the following are the amounts claimed and at issue: — in 1973—$1,800 to Toronto Express (claimed $1,650) — in 1974—$1,950 to Bank of Nova Scotia (claimed $1,758) — in 1975—$1,300 to Punjab Express $ 727.12—Royal Bank draft (claimed $2,584) *$ 700.12—CIBC bank draft —in 1976—$2,865—to Punjab Express $3 585 800—Royal Bank draft *No receipt form presented to Board. ...

The share structure of Petex was therefore (Exhibit A-3): Issued Shareholder Class A — voting, non-participating 100 Sam Hashman Class B — voting, non-participating 50 Morris Kowall Class B — voting, non-participating 50 JB O’Connor Class C — non-voting, participating 50 Jemp Investments Ltd Class C — non-voting, participating 50 Trust Corp of Bahamas Ltd Class C — non-voting, participating 100 Sam Hashman Management Ltd 9. On December 3, 1962 Mr Morris Kowall sold 96% of his shares in Petex — 64% to Mr Paul Ferner and 32% to Mr Ed Sardachuck. ... As a result of the above transaction, the commissions that were then receivable were as follows: Morris Kowall $ 1,000 Ed Sardachuck 33,000 Paul Ferner 41,000 Cyril Joffe 12,500 Yale Joffe 12,500 11. ...

He considered that the appropriate expenses showing the net income as stated below should be deducted from the added net income: Added gross income Expenses claimed Net income 1968 $ 7,905.84 $ 6,566.54 $ 1,339.00 1969 6,708.45 3,855.45 2,853.00 1970 15,007.42 9,076.92 5,930.50 1971 24,962.35 22,419.92 2,542.43 1972 15,715.19 9,978.04 5,737.15 The 1972 gross income includes $4,530.65 in accounts receivable as of December 31, 1972. 4.21. As can be seen from the tax returns, the appellant’s reported gross and net income for the years in question are as follows: Reported Reported gross income net income Percentage 1968 $ 27,925.15 $ 3,878.68 13.8895% 1969 32,749.13 4,232.80 12.9249% 1970 34,060.75 5,243.95 15.3958% 1971 41,517.00 5,870.70 14.1404% 1972 31,891.24 6,046.26 18.9589% TOTAL $168,143.27 $25,272.39 On average, therefore, the net income constitutes 15% of the gross income. 4.22. ... The result is the following table: Total gross income Taxed net income Percentage 1968 $ 35,830.99 $10,203.35 28.4% 1969 39,457.58 9,599.56 24.3% 1970 49,078.17 17,249.89 35.1% 1971 66,479.35 24,730.57 37.2% 1972 47,606.43 18,618.42 39.1% $238,452.52 $80,401.79 The general average for taxed net income is 33.7%. ...

The appeal was based on the following contentions by the taxpayer: — The appellant now resides at R R #7, Chatham, Ontario. — Cambrian approved consulting fees during its 1979 fiscal year. It also declared and paid dividends during that same year. — Crawford Ltd has an ongoing agreement to perform and receive payment for its consulting services to Cambrian. — The appellant personally owns shares of Cambrian. ... In a subsequent interview with the accountants for Cambrian — Martin, Tilley & Co, chartered accountants of Chatham and London, Ontario — Mr Powell was informed that there had been an unaccounted for $10,000 deposit certificate which showed up in the bank confirmtion of Crawford Ltd at the fiscal year end, and the accountants, lacking any information on it, credited that amount to income of Crawford Ltd. ...