Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

Contentions For the appellant: — he was a non-resident of Canada during the years in question; — he was a resident of Ireland during the same period, and is exempt from tax according to the Canada-Ireland Income Tax Agreement Act, 1967 (the “Agreement” or the “Convention”); For the respondent: —the appellant was not at any time material a resident of Ireland and the “Agreement” is of no assistance to him. Evidence The salient points brought out in examination and cross-examination of the appellant were: — he lived in Canada from 1930 until 1973; — in 1973, he accepted his first overseas engagement, which happened to be also in Ireland; — he is married, with two children, the family address as shown on his tax returns is where his wife resides; one child is now grown up and at university, the other is still at home; — he stayed in Ireland from August 1973 until late in 1974; — he returned to Ireland with a separate contract in May of 1975, on a three-year working permit, and returned to Canada only once for a ten- day Christmas holiday between that date and May of 1978; — his wife has her own career and remained in Canada, but visited him in Ireland frequently; — his pay was deposited in a Canadian bank, on which both his wife and himself had signing authority. He received a slip in Ireland from the Company, notifying him of the bank deposit; — he lived in rented accommodation in Ireland; —after a short stay in Canada in 1978, he obtained his new contract with a different employer, to work in Brazil; — he has a Canadian passport; — he could not apply for an Irish passport unless and until he had lived there for five years; — his contract with the Company was to get a new mine into operation, not to work after that in the mine; — his wife sent him funds from the joint bank account when it was required; —the family home is held in joint ownership with his wife; — he has maintained a Canadian driver’s licence, but does not own a car; — his medical insurance is carried on his wife’s policy; — he had no house furnishings or other tangible assets in Ireland; — he paid no income tax in Ireland; —the Company had made the arrangements for his working visa in Ireland; — he continued to pay Canadian union dues during the time material; — he did not join a union in Ireland. ...

A second aspect of the argument from counsel for the appellant is that the amount at issue did not result from a damage claim — was not, in fact, damages at all. ... Because an earlier Supreme Court judgment had an involvement with this matter, counsel for the Minister then proceeded to a second position which was that there was another “property” — the contract, the agreement of purchase and sale. ... In my view, the property which was sold (to use the terminology from paragraph 12(1)(b)) — to the extent that sold in that context can be interpreted as disposed of — was the agreement of purchase and sale in that it was terminated by the minutes of settlement. ...

These fees are broken down as follows: 1971 $2,870.00 1972 $7,546.20 1973 $3,595.00 1974 $4,899.31 Claims The appellant’s position is the following: — It operates a pharmacy in the City of Berthierville, Province of Quebec, under the name Produits Guy Barrette Inc; — It used the services of a specialized agency which does business under the name of the Association professionelle des Pharmaciens salariés du Québec and provides various pharmacies with staff when needed; — It usually made out a negotiable cheque in advance, which could be readily converted into cash to pay the replacement pharmacist the fees owed to him for his day’s work. The respondent’s position is the following: — Under the above-mentioned section of the two Pharmacy Acts, the appellant cannot employ pharmacists to operate the pharmacy. ...

Payment of purchase price to be carried over 1 year as follows: 1 / Down 1/3 6th Month 1 / 12 Month (6,324.59) (6,324.59) (6,324.59) 3. Use of Agency name (BROWN) for 3 years if required (ie Lester & Brown). 4. ... LESTER & SON, and W. A. LESTER & SON has agreed to purchase the attached list of customers with related information for the price hereinafter set forth. ...

The redemption created a gain of $213,324.53 ($311,745.86 + $16,000 — $114,421.33), taxed in equal proportions to the appellants. ... A-5—The balance sheet of said financial statements reads as follows: GATEWAY PAPERS LIMITED (Incorporated as a private company under the laws of Manitoba) BALANCE SHEET—DECEMBER 31, 1969 (unaudited) ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS Cash $ 23,817 Accounts receivable 96,233 Inventory, at the lower of cost and net realizable value 38,218 Prepaid expenses 3,187 $161,455 FIXED ASSETS, at cost Automotive equipment 225,876 Office and warehouse equipment 19,159 Leasehold improvements 4,029-,. 249,064 Less accumulated depreciation 156,818 92,246 DEFERRED FINANCE CHARGES 2,333... $256,034 LIABILITIES CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts payable and accrued liabilities $ 61,626 Taxes payable 9,842 The Canada Trust Company Advances $250,000 Accrued interest 61,746 311,746 Principal due within one year on long-term debt 19,073 402,287 LONG-TERM DEBT Finance contracts 22,163. ... That gain realized, however, should be allocated in the following amounts, the adjustments relating only to the taxation years:__ Victor Spencer Mary Spencer Prior to 1971 $ 15,900.00 $ 7,950.00 $ 7,950.00 1971 48,973.90 24,486.95 24,486.95 1972 53,000.00 26,500.00 26,500.00 1973 95,450.64 47,725.32 47,725.32 $213,324.54 $106,662.27 $106,662.27 Decision The appeals are allowed in part to permit the amount of $24,486.95 rather than $32,436.95 to be added to the taxable income of each of the appellants for the year 1971, and this is referred back to the respondent for reassessment. ...

Accordingly, the sum of $14,944.87 was received by the appellant on March 4,1976, being the sum of one year’s salary and pension benefit less deductions for income tax, Canada Pension Plan, Unemployment Insurance and personal use of an automobile, and calculated as follows: one year’s salary $20,720.00 pension benefit $ 1,036.00 $21,756.00 Deduct: Income Tax $ 6,216.00 Canada Pension Plan, Unemployment Insurance, Automobile $ 595.13 $ 6,811.13 $14,944.87 (Exhibit A-2) The appellant received the said amount “in satisfaction of all claims arising out of my employment by Nisbet Lodge and as agreed between us up to this date” (March 4, 1976) as it appears from “Statement of settlement.of termination of employment, effective February 29th, 1976”(Exhibit A-2). ... We were also aware of his family and we had a high regard for his wife and son and I believe even now that we really tried to make it as easy as possible for Mr & Mrs Hibbins. ... Carter v Bell & Sons, [1936] 2 DLR 438; 2. Thomas G Quance v HMQ, [1974] CTC 225; 74 DTC 6210; 3. ...

The respondent, on June 1, 1977, reassessed so as to treat the sale of the property as being of an income nature, and made the following adjustment to the 1974 return of the appellant: Gain on sale of land $103,482 Less: Taxable Capital Gain Reported 25,741 Additional Income—1974 $ 77,741 Contentions For the appellant: —The Company purchased the land for use in its business and not for resale. ... The taxpayer was not in a position in 1970 to commence operations on the prefabricating plant, but wanted the location as a starting point. — Albrecht was the driving force in the company and he suffered a very serious car accident in July 1973. ... The financial statements of the company for these two years ended July 31, can be summarized as: 1974 1975 Sales $1,485,965 $1,000,301 Sales Net Operating Income $ 100,066 $ 65,434 Net Operating Income Gain on sale of fixed assets $ 103,917' (Identified as the gain on the subject property) The activity in ‘‘building lots” during the fiscal year ended July 31, 1974 may be reconstructed from the available financial statements to show in summary: Building lots inventory at cost—August 1,1973 $182,342 Less cost of subject property included therein 41,000 $141,342 PURCHASES OF BUILDING LOTS AT COST DURING THE YEAR 355,562 $496,904 Used in home construction during the year (at cost) 192,254 Building lot inventory at cost—July 31,1974 $304,650 Argument Counsel for the appellant proposed that the rationale for both the purchase and the sale of the land complied precisely with situations in which the gains were held to be on capital account for income tax purposes. ...

In computing his income for the 1973, 1974 and 1975 taxation years, the appellant attempted to claim a deduction for alimony payments to his spouse from whom he was living separate and apart pursuant to a written separation agreement, in the following amounts: 1973 taxation year — $11,046.16 1974 taxation year — $12,197.20 1975 taxation year — $11,136.69. ...

The facts upon which the parties were in agreement included: — The appellant is a self-employed plumbing contractor. — He did not file income tax returns for the years 1973 to 1976. — By arbitrary assessment the respondent determined the appellant’s taxable income for the years in question to be as follows: 1973 $12,827.00 1974 14,848.59 1975 2,224.54 1976 12,624.27 — By Notices of Assessment dated July 13, 1978 the respondent levied, inter alia, penalties under section 163(1) of the Federal Income Tax Act and section 19 of the BC Income Tax Act. ... He was not positive that there would have been income tax to pay — but assumed there might have been. ... It remains therefore for the Minister to show that this taxpayer knew or should have known that tax was payable — in connection with the three remaining years. ...

Background The appellant was employed during the relevant time by Clarkson, Gordon & Co (“Clarkson”), and/or their affiliated business operations. — He incurred automobile expenses in connection with his employment, which expenses he calculated at $713.77. — He received from his employer $420.80 calculated on the basis of the mileage travelled. — In preparing his 1977 income tax return, he deducted the difference of $292.97 from his income. ... Contentions For the appellant: — In the operation of a motor vehicle for the purposes alleged, a charge for parking is inherent in the nature of and the use of any such vehicle and its operation. ... EXPENSES DUE TO BUSINESS USE Type of Automobile—1967 Ford Fairlane—500 Miles Travelled on Business —2104 Total Miles —4570 % Business Usage 46.04% Costs— Gasoline (2104 miles) 94.33 — Business Insurance 76.00 —46.04% of Regular Insurance 49.26 —46.04% of Maintenance 35.40 —CCA—46.04%—Class 10 (30%) Averaged with 57% availability on time basis = 51.57% 90.78 — Parking—Based on 80% availability (4 out of 5 days) 368.00 Total Busines Expense 713.77 Allowance Paid by Employer 2104 miles @ $0.20 = (420.80) Net Claim For Tax Purposes $292.97 12-4-78 (Signature) Note: I maintain two automobiles, the automobile used for pleasure/personal driving is not reflected in this claim Argument Counsel for the appellant made the fundamental point that the very nature of the contract of employment with Clarkson required Price to keep an automobile “on standby” at the Winnipeg office, and that the resulting “standby” charge for parking was essentially no different than the cost of the automobile licences or insurance which would be deductible. ...