Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

From the above I have established that I am an independent contractor: — I was under no restrictions in my field of endeavour. — I was able to provide the same services independently and without restrictions at different establishments at the same time. — No actual control other than as to the general type of course was exercised over me. ... Accordingly, he essentially went out and actively pursued — indeed sold — his expertise to various schools under differing arrangements and at different times. ... For that result, to some degree he lays the blame on Revenue Canada for not allowing the expenses he incurred — at least those he claimed. ...

Wong to each purchase an undivided / interest in the property in question. ... Both Tsao and Wong acted through their lawyers and agreed to sell their undivided / interests in the land. ... There was no income from the land — only expenses (Tsao sent his taxes c/o Dr. ...

It was agreed between the parties that the matter of the $3,693 non-capital loss claim would not be placed before the Board — although the Minister’s counsel took on the obligation to review it separately after the hearing. ... On the $311.83 interest expense, the position of the Minister was as indicated in the reply to notice of appeal: — in or about December, 1977, the appellant negotiated with the Bank of Montreal to repay in installments the principal sum of $4,530 previously borrowed by him as a Canada Student Loan; — the sum of $311.83 was interest paid by the appellant with respect to the aforementioned loan in the 1978 taxation year; — the sum of $311.83 was not expended by the appellant for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property; — the sum of $311.83 was a personal and living expense of the appellant; — sums expended on account of interest payable for a Canada Student Loan are not deductible by the appellant in the computation of his income as such amounts were not expended for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property within the meaning of paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, but were personal and living expenses of the appellant within the meaning of paragraph 18(1)(h) of the Act. ... The fact of the matter is that the Minister in this instance is not taking issue that the money was borrowed — that is clear. ...

. — Mr Prussick, the appellant, received on the winding-up of the Company, a sum of $15,000 and is taxable on a deemed dividend of $20.000. ... —The appellant took in payment for the above goodwill, common and preference shares to the full amount of $15,000. — No objection was raised by Revenue Canada in 1959 either to the purchase or valuation of goodwill by the corporation. — In 1973 the appellant decided to wind up the Company and distributed the net assets remaining. — In so doing, he concluded that the most advantageous approach would be to pay the reduced rate of 15% tax on undistributed income. — He did so effective December 31,1973, with what he regarded to be the agreement of Revenue Canada. — In making the necessary calculation, and ultimate distribution of the Company assets, he reduced the book amount of undistributed income by $15,000 representing the above-noted goodwill. ... —The appeal at issue resulted. — Reference is made to one of the contentions of the respondent, noted earlier: It is too late for the Company to make another election as regard to the $15,000 added; the charter of the Company was officially surrendered on November 9, 1974. ...

Promissory Notes — (84) 4. Illustrations of calculation of interest — working papers 5. ... Eljay Irrigation Ltd — Sale of Shares together with Promissory Notes G. ... The facts of this — if I can just say by way of an aside — the facts of this appeal are, in terms of my research, quite unique. ...

Balance of Second Mortgage taken back on Sale which is outstanding —• at June 30, 1966 $135,500.00 — at June 30, 1967 $132,000.00 D. Section 85B Reserve Allowable — at June 30, 1966 $128,518.36 (gross profit) 35,500 (balance $200,500.00 second 9 g) $86,854.18 — at June 30, 1967 $128,518.36 (gross profit) $132000 (balance of second mortgage) $84,610.07 $200,500.00 (equity) mortgage) The appellant did not appeal the 1966 assessment but, in computing its income for the taxation year 1967, it brought back into income the amount of the previous year’s reserve. In reassessing the appellant for its 1967 taxation year the respondent made the following adjustments: Net Income previously assessed $29,803.27 Deduct: Prior adjustment re Section 85B Reserve $25,000.00 $ 4,803.27 Add: Section 85B Reserve adjustment now allowed Balance June 30, 1966 $86,854.18 Balance June 30, 1967 $84,610.07 Amount of reserve realized in 1967 $ 2,244,11 Revised Net Income Assessed $ 7,047.38 In so re-assessing the appellant, the Minister has allowed as a reserve the sum of $84,610.07. ...

A certificate for 47 shares of Léandre Lachance & Associés Inc was issued in the appellant’s name (Exhibit A-6). ... This document is entitled “Statement of Monies owed to L Lachance & Ass by Bruno Michel”. ... Act — Case law — Analysis 4.01 Act The principal sections of the Income Tax Act relating to this case are sections 3, 9, 12, paragraph 12(1)(g), sections 96 and 248. ...

While Mrs Shirley was peacefully sitting holding her 20-acre parcel of land located immediately to the south of the City of London, the St Lawrence Cement Co — acting completely on its own initiative — made application to her early in 1967 for a right-of-way across her said property for the purpose of connecting its property (which lies to the south and west of Mrs Shirley’s property) with the CNR line running from London to Port Stanley by constructing therefrom a spur line on the proposed right-of-way. ... The company’s liabilities, endorsed by the father, were as follows: $1,580.21 — overdraft for NSF cheques 40,000.00 — bank loan 36,972.63 — mortgage on the new building 20,990.83 — trading account According to a 1965 record, $88,370.59 represented the amount that the company owed the father as at the end of 1965. ... Counsel for the appellant argued that Mr Atkinson, Sr’s business was a three-pronged affair — law, lending money and dealing with Risteen and other companies; that he used them indiscriminately, and that it would be unfair to segregate one from the other because it was a one-man affair. ...

In so reassessing the Appellant’s income tax liability, the Respondent relied, inter alia, on the following assumptions of fact: (a) The 336 shares owned by the Appellant in Baird & Company Limited were shares of capital stock of a Canadian-controlled private corporation; (b) The Appellant still owned the 336 shares referred to in paragraph 4(a) on December 31, 1979; (c) As a result of the bankruptcy of Baird & Company Limited on March 27, 1979, the Appellant was deemed to have disposed of the 336 shares at the end of her 1979 taxation year and to have reacquired them immediately thereafter at a cost equal to nil; (d) The Appellant incurred a business investment loss with respect to the deemed disposition of the 336 shares referred to in paragraph 4(c) in the amount of $126,000.00; (e) The Appellant’s allowable business investment loss in 1979 was $63,000.00; (f) The Appellant’s total income in 1978 and 1979 was as follows: 1978 — $44,049.00 1979 — $48,990.00 4. The Facts The facts are not in dispute. 4.01 On August 28, 1972, the appellant inherited three hundred and thirty six (336) common shares in Baird & Company Limited from the estate of her father. the late James Baird. 4.02 At the time of death, a value of one hundred and twenty six thousand dollars ($126,000) was accepted by the Department of National Revenue as the value of the three hundred and thirty six (336) common shares. 4.03 On March 27, 1979, Baird & Company Limited was adjudicated as bankrupt. 4.04 As a consequence of the bankruptcy of Baird & Company Limited, the appellant was deemed to have disposed of the said shares at the end of 1979 for nil thereby incurring a loss of one hundred and twenty six thousand dollars ($126,000). 4.05 The said loss of the appellant, upon the deemed disposition of the said shares in Baird & Company Limited, was claimed as a capital loss for the taxation years ended December 31, 1978 and 1979. 4.06 The said loss of the appellant, upon the deemed disposition of the said shares in Baird & Company Limited, was reassessed as an allowable business investment loss. 9. Law — Analysis 5.01 Law The provisions of the Income Tax Act, SC 1970-71-72, c 63, as amended, involved in the present case are paragraphs 3(b), 3(d), 3(e), section 38, and paragraphs 39(1)(b), 39(1)(c), 111 (1) (a), and 111 (8)(b). 5.02 Analysis 5.02.1 In claiming a capital loss, the appellant wants to be able to deduct from capital accumulations in the future. ...

And I’d suggest that here we have a situation where he and the company were carrying on, as he individually had always carried on, and he put this company between himself and some of the public; not to leave the money-lending business — if that had been the case, he would not have continued at all — but rather, to shield himself from some of the undesirable attitudes, some legal, some non legal, with respect to that business. ... While the notices of appeal indicated a certain reliance on a second contention — that the appellant was in the business conducted by Ship’s School — counsel did not assert this perspective at the hearing. ... The circumstances cannot be equated to those described in MNR v Henry J Freud, [1968] CTC 438; 68 DTC 5279, wherein the funds loaned to the US corporation were for the •purpose — one last effort — to make the company profitable by producing the prototype car. ...