Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

The respondent asserted that: — Bevan Bonthron purchased 502 of the common shares of Bonthron & Sons Ltd, from the Estate of Harold J Bonthron during the appellant’s 1975 taxation year at a price of $87.50 per share, but denies that the sale of shares to Bevan Bonthron was on an arm’s length basis; — the appellant failed to include any amount as a taxable capital gain from the disposition of 502 common shares of Bonthron & Sons Ltd, the appellant, to the respondent’s knowledge, employing an adjusted cost base equivalent to the proceeds of disposition of $43,483.24 in computing a nil gain or loss. ... Maintainable Earnings before Tax $7,416 Income Taxes @ 25% 1,854 Net Maintainable Earnings $5,562 Less: Dividends on Preferred Shares 210 Common Share Earnings $5,352 Earnings Multipliers 7X 8>< Value Range $37,464 $42,816 Value Range per Common Share (rounded) $ 37.50 $ 43.00 Argument Counsel for the appellant stressed that Mr Morrison was entitled to adopt an optimistic posture in valuing the shares. ... The critical thing was the value at December 31, 1971 — $40.14 in the opinion of the Minister — and the financial results for the years 1970 and 1971 could not be ignored in determining that value. ...

The financial statements which produced the losses in question are reproduced: F L JOHNSON “REGISTERED ANGUS” FARM INCOME AND EXPENSE 1973 INCOME Rental $1,000 $ Tax Rebate 163 1,163 EXPENSES Cattle Purchases 1,894 Feed and Seed 195 Insurance 258 Repairs and Maintenance 71 Taxes 333 Mortgage Interest 2,124 Loan Interest 296 Utilities 133 Telephone 94 Casual Wages 1,450 Truck Expense Gas and Oil $240 Repair and Maintenance 223 Insurance and Licence 155 618 7,466 — NET LOSS BEFORE DEPRECIATION ($6,303) DEPRECIATION—House $ 657 —Buildings 1,223 —Truck 325 —Equipment 27 2,232 ($8,535) LESS: Personal Consumption 450 ($8,085) DEPRECIATION FRAME SCHEDULE EQUIPMENT LAND HOUSE BUILDINGS TRUCK BUS PORTION Addition—1973 $135 $45,213 $6,566 $12,225 $1,082 Depreciation 27 657 1,223 325 $108 $45,213 $5,909 $11,002 $ 757 F L JOHNSON “REGISTERED ANGUS” FARM INCOME AND EXPENSE 1974 INCOME Rent $1,000 Cattle 892 892 Tax Rebate 178 $ 2,070 EXPENSES Cattle Purchases 1,851 Pasture Rent 136 Veterinary Service 148 Feed and Seed 547 General Repair and Maintenance 492 Building Repairs 393 Small Tools and Supplies 199 Casual Labour 1,825 Mortgage Interest 3,844 Loan Interest 371 Utilities 321 Phone 187 Insurance and Taxes 320 Truck Expenses Gas and Oil $331 Repairs and Maintenance 489 Insurance and Licence 192 1,012 11,646 NET LOSS BEFORE DEPRECIATION ($ 9,576) DEPRECIATION—House 591 —Buildings 1,100 —Truck 227 —Equipment 82 2,000 ($11,576) LESS: Personal Consumption 325 ($11,251) DEPRECIATION FRAME SCHEDULE LAND EQUIPMENT HOUSE BUILDINGS TRUCK BUS PORTION BALANCE—Jan. 1, 1974 $45,213 $108 $5,909 $11,002 $757 Addition — 300 $408 Depreciation — 82 591 1,100 227 BALANCE $45,213 $326 $5,318 $ 9,902 $530 Contentions The appellant’s position was that he was entitled to all of the amounts claimed since he had entered the operation with every intention of making it a viable going concern. ...

Calculation of 146(5) via 146(1)(c) Employment Income $ 9,142.79 Pension Income 2,758.05 RRSP Income 2,042.47 13,943.31 UIC Premiums (110.83) Union Dues (64.20) Earned Income—146(1)(c) 13,768.28 20%.20 2,753.66 Less RPP 545.54 146(5) Deduction $ 2,208.12 2. ... Calculation of 60(j) Actual Contributions 3,892.00 Deduction per 146(5) 1,871.34 Revised Total per 60(j) $ 2,020.66 C. ... Correct 60(j) amount $ 2,104.85 Correct 146(5) amount 1,787.15 Pension Income Deduction per 110.2(4) Pension Income $ 2,758.05 60(j) Deduction 2,104.85 Pension Income Deduction $ 653.20 ...

The facts are not in dispute 3.01 The appellant is a corporation whose main objects are the manufacture of generators, and the conversion, sale and repair of Diesel motors. 3.02 In 1973, the appellant planned to acquire a piece of land for the construction of a building, to relocate and to purchase machinery and equipment. 3.03 On September 12, 1972, the appellant applied for financial assistance to the Quebec Industrial Development Corporation (QIDC) under the Quebec Industrial Development Assistance Act (Exhibit A-1). 3.04 On or about June 20, 1973, the QIDC sent the appellant an offer of financial assistance, as appears from the document filed as Exhibit A-2. 3.05 The QIDC’s offer of June 20, 1973 was based on the following invest ment plan: acquisition of land $121,000 construction of a building $675,000 relocation $ 58,500 purchase of machinery and equipment 89,200 $943,700 3.06 On or about June 27, 1973, the QIDC’s offer was accepted by the appellant, as appears from the document dated June 20,1973 which is filed as Exhibit A-2. 3.07 On or about December 14, 1973, the QIDC informed the appellant that the amendments to the offer of financial assistance dated June 20, 1973 were approved, as appears from the document filed as Exhibit A-3. 3.08 On or about February 14, 1974, the QIDC entered into an agreement with the appellant, as appears from the document filed as Exhibit A-4; the said agreement came into force on June 13, 1973. 3.09 The QIDC’s assistance was calculated in terms of a loan of $700,000 which the appellant contracted with the Canadian National Bank with interest of 9 from July 1, 1973. 3.10 The actual cost of the project as of October 31, 1974 was the follow- ing: Purchase of land $ 90,985 Construction 1973 $451,747 1974 734,074 $1,185,821 Machinery and Equipment 1973 52,986 1974 66,359 119,345 $1,396,151 3.11 For the 1973 and 1974 years in question, the financial years of the appellant were from November 1,1972 to October 31,1973 and from November 1, 1973 to October 31, 1974 respectively. 3.12 The nature of the QIDC’s assistance to the appellant is set out in clause 3.00 of the agreement (Exhibit A-4), which reads as follows: The Corporation agrees to assume part of the cost of the above-mentioned loan equal to the lesser of the following two amounts: forty per cent (40%) of the annual interest paid on the said loan or the amounts set out in the table which appears in clause 3.01 hereinafter. ... The total amount of the QIDC’s assistance was not to exceed $134,100, as the amount determined for each year including 1974 and 1975 was only approximate. 3.13 Clause 5.00 of the agreement (Exhibit A-4) reads as follows: The Company must submit a claim accompanied by supporting documents no later than January 31 of each year, indicating the amount of interest paid or then owing on the loan and an auditor’s certificate relating thereto, the whole to the Corporation’s satisfaction. 3.14 On January 31, 1974, through its auditors Boulanger, Fortier, Rondeau & Co, the appellant sent the QIDC the claim in accordance with clause 5.00 cited above. The document indicates that the interest accrued and paid up to December 31, 1973 amounts to $16,005.78. 3.15 On April 5, 1974, in filing its income tax return for the 1973 taxation year, the appellant claimed a deduction for interest in the amount of $6,413 with respect to a loan which it contracted to carry out an investment project. 3.16 This accrued interest in the amount of $6,413 covered the period from July 1, 1973 to October 31, 1973. 3.17 On April 21, 1975, in filing its income tax return for the 1974 taxation year, the appellant claimed a deduction for interest in the amount of $100,438.25 with respect to a loan which it contracted to carry out the same investment project. 3.18 This accrued interest in the amount of $100,438.25 covered the period from November 1, 1973 to October 31, 1974. 3.19 During 1973, the appellant did not receive any assistance from the QIDC. 3.20 During the 1974 taxation year, the appellant received a payment of $6,402 from the QIDC, representing 40% of the cost of the loan in the amount of $16,005 for the period from July 1, 1973 to December 31, 1973. 3.21 The amount of $6,402 received from the QIDC was allocated as follows by the appellant in its financial statements and tax return (Canada) for 1974: — Land: N/A — Building: cat 3 $5,249 — Machinery and equipment: cat 29 $1,153 $6,402 B. ...

Contentions For the appellant: — The difference between the amount allocated by the appellant to the cost of restaurant equipment, namely the sum of $16,000 with respect to the purchase of the cafeteria business in 1970 and the total purchase price, namely the sum of $75,000 was an acquisition by the appellant of a leasehold interest. — Any portion of the $55,000 of the proceeds of sale, receivable by the appellant with respect to the sale of the cafeteria business, not allocated as a disposition of restaurant equipment by the appellant should have been allocated as a disposition of the appellant’s leasehold interest and not as a disposition of goodwill. — The appellant did not claim any capital cost allowance with respect to his acquisition of a leasehold interest in 1970 and is entitled to claim a terminal loss on the disposition of the said interest in 1974. — There was no goodwill attached to and forming part of the cafeteria business. For the respondent: — The appellant never considered or included the alleged value of the leasehold interest in the allocation of the acquisition price. — The appellant was subsequently unable to establish that any part of the sale price was attributable to the value of the leasehold interest. — The leasehold interest was correctly valuated at nil, according to the well-established valuation principles. — The amount of $11,875 was correctly added to the appellant’s income as the profit derived from the sale of goodwill, pursuant and in accordance with subsection 14(1) of the new Income Tax Act, and subsection 21(1) of the Income Tax Application Rules. ... The results of the appellant’s operations for 1970 (9 months) showed a profit of $8,429,79, for the full year 1971 — $12,145.95, for 1972 — $7,946.63, and for 1973 — $9,562.44. ...

New & Co was incorporated to serve as a personal family corporation and its shareholders consisted solely of members of the New family. 8 The shareholders in Coastal Towing in the period from 1968 to 1970 were Andy's Bay, E Baxter, Coast Ferries, Mr A G Garrish, W K Morrison (now Sim), Mrs E V New, O H New, New & Co, E J Riordan and W A New (Exhibit A-1). 9 At the end of 1969 Oswald H New owned more than 50% of the voting shares in New & Co; New & Co owned more than 50% of the voting shares in Coastal Towing, and Coastal Towing owned more than 50% of the voting shares in Andy's Bay. 10 On April 6, 1970 New & Co sold 100,000 common shares of Coastal Towing to Andy's Bay for the sum of $150,000 on the basis of $75,000 in cash with the balance of $75,000 to be paid as and when funds became available over the next 10 years. ... After prior discussion with Oswald New with reference to the repayment of his personal loan and that of New & Co to Coastal Towing within the time prescribed by law, but without any specific direction as to how the loans were to be repaid, Mr Garrish, in the absence of Oswald New, and on the basis that Andy's Bay owed New & Co a balance of $75,000 arising from the purchase of 100,000 common shares, transferred an amount of $25,000 on September 22, 1970 from New & Co's receivables to Coastal Towing and assigned this receivable to liquidate the liability of New & Co in the amount of $21,496.13 and Oswald New's personal liability of some $3,500 to Coastal Towing (Exhibits A-11 and A-12). ... However, the balance sheet of New & Co for 1970 (Exhibit A-13) shows that Andy's Bay owed New & Co a balance of $50,000, $25,000 less than the original balance receivable in payment for the Coastal Towing shares. ...

That amount was founded on the following assumptions of fact: — That the Appellant was at all times material director and sole shareholder of Cawsey Enterprises Ltd (Cawsey); — That the Appellant was at all times material the spouse of one Ronald Waddell; — That Cawsey paid in 1976 pursuant to the direction of, or with the concurrence of, the Appellant, to Ronald Waddell the amount of $48,000,000.00; — That the payment of the said $48,000.00 constituted a benefit that the Appellant desired to have conferred on Ronald Waddell; — That the said payment if made to the Appellant would have been included in computing the Appellant’s income for the 1976 taxation year. ... Therefore, the taxation sought by the Minister can only be upheld if the final phrase in subsection 56(2) of the Act — “to the extent that it would be if the payment or transfer (of property) had been made to him” — can be applied directly to Mrs Waddell. ...

Contentions For the appellant: — Legal fees paid in respect of negotiating alimony and maintenance are deductible. — Since the payment of alimony and maintenance are taxable, any and all costs incurred by the taxpayer in an attempt to secure and collect taxable income are deductible. For the respondent: — The outlay or expense in the amount of $3,319 was a personal or living expense. — It was not made or incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property. ... I also note that this case is similar to another recent decision — Rita Corbeil-Labelle v MNR, [1978] CTC 3226; 78 DTC 1982 — in which the Board upheld the position of the Minister that the legal costs incurred by the appellant had been made for the purpose of obtaining or establishing a right, not for the purpose of obtaining revenue therefrom. ...

Some time in 1969, T & T Agencies Limited, owned and operated by one Harlen Thompson of Kindersley, Saskatchewan, being in the business of real estate insurance, income tax consulting, travel agency and sale of motor licences, approached Kjeldsli with a view to selling to him all the business of T & T Agencies Limited. ... Accordingly, after some consultation or negotiation between Kjeldsli and Thompson of T & T Agencies Limited with the appellant participating on at least one occasion, an agreement was entered into by Kjeldsli and T & T Agencies which was filed as Exhibit A-1 and which reads as follows: AGREEMENT MADE IN DUPLICATE THIS 31st DAY OF OCTOBER, A D 1969 BETWEEN: T & T AGENCIES LIMITED, a body corporate carrying on business in the Province of Saskatchewan, hereinafter called the Vendor of the First part. ... On October 31, 1969, T & T Agencies Ltd entered into an agreement with John Iver Kjeldsli pursuant to which T & T Agencies Ltd sold to Kjeldsli for $20,000 its insurance and tax consulting business. ...

J Santarossa & Sons Total assets $38,737.92 Partnership—closing balance Sheet June 30, 1967 2. ... J Santarossa & Sons Erie Sand and Gravel and Vanier Street Opening balance sheet set up at cost. ... Copy of statements Shows repayment of Iq^n December 19, J Santarossa & Sons Limited 1974—$45,000.00 at CIBC 16. ...