Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

American Wheelabrator & Equipment Corp v MNR, [1951] Tax ABC 345; 51 DTC 285; 8. ... Tara Exploration & Development Co Ltd v MNR, [1970] CTC 557; 70 DTC 6370; 16. MNR v Tara Exploration & Development Co Ltd, [1972] CTC 328; 72 DTC 6288; 1/7. ...

A severe storm on or about March 13, 1973 caused substantial damage to the shoreline facing the river in Lambton County and resulted in such damage to the wooden retaining wall that a significant quantity of gravel was washed into the river. — In the spring of 1976, the 1976 retaining wall that forms the subject matter of the present appeal was constructed to protect and maintain an existing asset — the land — from damage caused by erosion. ... Contentions For the appellant: — The construction of the 1976 retaining wall constituted a repair which neither materially added to the value of the subject land nor appreciably prolonged its life but which merely kept it in an ordinary, efficient operating condition. — The 1976 retaining wall did not add to the value of the subject realty but it did prevent the subject land from becoming worthless. — The 1976 retaining wall did not create a lasting advantage or bring into existence a new asset but was intended to maintain an existing asset — the land — and to preserve the asset from the ravages of erosion. — The 1976 retaining wall became an integral component of the subject land and had no value apart from its connection to the subject land. — The events subsequent to the acquisition of the subject land by the appellant, namely the rising water level, the increasingly rapid river current and the storm damage that made the repair of the 1964 retaining wall vital to preserve the non-depreciable asset — the land — from further deterioration due to erosion, were the reasons for the construction of the retaining wall in 1976. For the respondent: — The new steel dock was extended further than the old wooden dock; — the new steel dock appreciably prolonged the life of the property in question and arrested deterioration. ...

Dominion Steel & Coal Corp Ltd v MNR, 16 Tax ABC 427; 57 DTC 147; 8. ... Southco Holdings & Management Ltd et al v MNR, [1975] CTC 2205; 75 DTC 162; 16. ... Indeed, the object of the transaction — French currency — is by its very nature a commercial object. ...

Conclusion concerning the Taxes Payable in accordance with previous decisions, therefore, the Board rules that the difference of $43,841.61 assessed by the respondent, between the balance sheets of December 31, 1958 and December 31, 1971, should be reduced by $9,200, to take the following items into account: Office furniture and fittings $ 200 Accounts receivable $4,000 Inventory $3,000 Rolling stock $2,000 Total $9,200 The balance of $34,641.61 must therefore be divided between the years 1959 to 1971, giving a figure of $2,664.73 a year. ... The figure of $8,674.75 representing the undeclared income for the period 1966 to 1971 has been arrived at by the following calculation: Balance sheet to December 31, 1971 $53,556.23 Balance sheet to December 31, 1965 $25,602.85 Increase $27,903.38 Plus — personal expenses $22,372.51 federal tax $ 2,923.26 provincial tax $ 2,890.87 capital loss $ 60.00 $28,246.54 $56,149.92 Minus bequests and gifts (9,539.08) income for the period 1966 to 1971 $46,610.84 Minus declared income 37,936.11 $ 8,674.75 The Board therefore vacates the notices of reassessment for the years 1966 and 1967, including of course the penalties of 25% and 5%. ... Conclusion The Board allows in part the petition of the appellant and refers the matter back to the respondent for reassessment, to take into account the following points: — additional income of $2,664.73 is added for each of the years 1959 to 1965 and 1968 to 1971; — penalties of 25% are imposed for the years 1959 to 1965: — the notices of reassessment issued for the years 1966 and 1967, together with the penalties pertaining to them, are vacated: — the penalties of 25% for the years 1968 to 1971 are vacated: — the penalty of 5% for the years 1959 to 1965 and 1968 to 1971 is upheld. ...

Mr Tozer had detailed the disallowed amounts in his tax returns as follows: Details — Additional Expenses (1978) Extras on leased car $ 810 Travel (Misc — tolls, checking, porters, parking, pay phones, etc) 275 Office (Other than allowable portion) Stationery, file boxes & folders, shelves, misc supplies 75 Postage (out of town) 55 Dues 60 Promotion & Entertainment (Other than normal during mill visits) customers met in bars, lounges, airports, during flights, weekends at horn and cottage 425 Local transportation Use of personal car by wife for business when I am out of town. ... Use of personal 4-wheel-drive jeep for promotional & winter use.) $ 565 Out of town travel not reimbursed (tolls, checking, porters, pay phones, laundry) 340 Office Expenses Stationery, file folders, misc 80 Postage 60 Promotion & Entertainment (Customers met in bars, lounges, airports, during flights, and wekend entertainment at home and cottage.) 430 Membership 60 TOTAL $1,535 At the hearing, the appellant noted that he was withdrawing his claim for the amounts shown above to the extent of the $810 and $75 in 1978 and the $80 in 1979. ... It is clear from the evidence and testimony in the appeal that such claiming for expenses and appropriate reimbursement was part and parcel of the terms under which the appellant performed his duties — in other words, “the contract of em- ployment”. ...

(Airport) Ltd. 34,804.16 34,753.52 Total taxable income declared $66,462.23 $69,170,01 Calculation of taxes payable if section 138A(2) applied Tax on $35,000 — 21% 7,350.00 7,350.00 Tax on balance — 50% 15,731.11 17,085.00 $23,081.11 $24,435.00 Less: provincial credit — 10% 6,646.22 6,917.00 $16,434.89 $17,518.00 Less: tax previously paid C.L.B. ... (Airport) Ltd. 3,828.46 7,430.23 3,822.89 7,760.58 Additional taxes due $ 9,004,66 $ 9,757,42 Increase in taxes: $9,004.66 +- 9,757.42:: $18,762.08 In the first place, I intend to dispose of the submission made by the appellant under paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the Notice of Appeal. ... Reference is also had to: Doris Trucking Co Ltd v MNR, [1968] 2 Ex CR 501; [1968] CTC 303; Kitchener Manufactured Homes Limited v MNR, [1968] Tax ABC 748; Provident Finance Corporation Ltd v MNR, [1969] Tax ABC 413; MNR v Howson & Howson Ltd, [1970] CTC 36; Baycast Products Ltd et al v MNR, [1969] Tax ABC 339; Barkman Developments Ltd et al v MNR, [1968] 1 Ex CR 229; [1967] CTC 325, upheld unanimously by the Supreme Court of Canada without written reasons. ...

Yours sincerely, Jean-Yves Sirois Secretary-T reasurer For: BETON PROVINCIAL LTEE cc: B Lévesques Montreal Orens Gadreau Outardes — II L Normandeau Montreal Paul Gremeaux Outardes — II 4.15 The contract made provision (pages E-15, E-16 and E-17, clauses 17 and 18 of Exhibit A-1) for a variation in the base unit price of a cubic yard of concrete. ... Act — Case Law — Analysis 5.01 Act The principal legal provisions of the new Income Tax Act involved in the case at bar are paragraphs 12(1)(a) and (b). These paragraphs read as follows: 12. (1) There shall be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year as income from a business or property such of the following amounts as are applicable: (a) any amount received by the taxpayer in the year in the course of a business (i) that is on account of services not rendered or goods not delivered before the end of the year or that, for any other reason, may be regarded as not having been earned in the year or a previous year, or (ii) under an arrangement or understanding that it is repayable in whole or in part on the return or resale to the taxpayer of articles in or by means of which goods were delivered to a customer; (b) any amount receivable by the taxpayer in respect of property sold or services rendered in the course of a business in the year, notwithstanding that the amount or any part thereof is not due until a subsequent year, unless the method adopted by the taxpayer for computing income from the business and accepted for the purpose of this Part does not require him to include any amount receivable in computing his income for a taxation year unless it has been received in the year; 5.02 Case Law The parties referred the Board to the following case law and authorities: 1. — HMQ v Lagueux & Frères Inc, [1974] CTC 687; 74 DTC 6569; 2. — Thibault v Auger, [1950] CS 343; 3. — Carey v Carey, 42 CS 471; 4. — Kenneth B S Robertson Ltd v MNR, [1944] CTC 75; 2 DTC 655; 5. — Sandy v Yukon Construction Co Ltd, [1961] 26 DLR (2d) 254; 6. — Terreau et Racine Limitée v Trudel, [1963] CS 271; 7. — Mathers v Peltier Handling Equipment Co Ltd, [1970] CA 1; 8. — Lebel v St-Georges, [1961] CS 66; 9. — Emond et al v Saad (1927), 65 CS 188; 10. — Morissette v Beaudet et Archambault (1928), 45 QB 73; 11. — Grover v Stirling Bonding Co, [1935] 3 DLR 481; Type of Contract: Supplier of Materials 12. — L’Union Canadienne Co d’Assurancea v Structal Inc, [1973] CA 1051; Amounts Receivable: Income Tax Act 13. — MNR v Benaby Realties Ltd, [1967] CTC 418; 67 DTC 5275; 14. — MNR v John Col ford Contracting Co Ltd, [1962] CTC 546; 62 DTC 1338; 15. — J L Guay Ltée v MNR, [1971] CTC 686; 71 DTC 5423; 16. — Maple Leaf Mills Limited v MNR, [1976] CTC 324; 76 DTC 6182; 17. — Marvin L Hannem v MNR, [1980] CTC 2089; 80 DTC 1091. ...

Automobile 1/3/76 10/9/76 Less personal use 25% instead of 20% $ 699.73 $ 874.65 $174.92 NIL 2. Meals 2,530.27 1,200.00 800.00 $ 530.27 3. Travel and entertainment expenses 4,397.35 1,000.00 500.00 2,897.35 TOTAL DISALLOWED $3,427.62 1974 1. Automobile 1/3/76 10/9/76 (a) Upkeep and repairs $ 737.79 $ 405.92 $331.87 NIL (b) less personal use, 25% instead of 20% 671.94 756.96 85.02 NIL 2. ...

I might suggest Counsel support such fact and not allege presumptions — 158(1). ... Proof of Translation of Law — (a) Minister’s responsibility by statute — procedural application. (1) Establish, pursuant to 163(3) proof of, by ways of, indisputable evidence (facts), willfull attempt, and (not either or, but both) tax sought to be evaded (supported by dollar amount — fixation — Notice of Assessment, or residual balance sought to be evaded). (2) Indisputable proof of a return not filed by the taxpayer pursuant to 150(1), etc. ... Only when numbers (1) & (2) are accomplished is the taxpayer liable to 50%. ...

Mr J G Gaudaur sought and obtained an opinion from Mr G D Finlayson of the firm McCarthy & McCarthy, solicitors, which reads as follows: (Exhibit R-14) McCarthy & McCarthy Barristers Solicitors Patent & Trade Mark Agents September 25, 1974 J. ... Who would be responsible for paying Gottlieb & Company under the contracts? ... The services rendered by Gottlieb & Company to the appellants are also quite nebulous. ...