Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

The name “Debco” was made up of the first letter of each of the surnames of its three founders (also its shareholders) — “D” for Doricott, “e” for Eusanio and “b” for Brotherston, “co” being, of course, the abbreviation of the word “company”. ... In that regard, it should be observed that the appellant’s balance sheet as at September 30, 1967, covering the taxation year under appeal, contains the following inexplicable item under the heading of share capital — ‘Issued & Fully Paid: 3 Common Shares (par value $1.00) $99.00”. ... We changed the heating system and then we had space on the outside of the building which we did not have for stock of any kind. and — It was not constructed right. ...

The borrowers in the present appeals can only claim immunity from the provisions of paragraph 15(2)(b) under the provisions of paragraph 15(2)(a) of the Act — and that requires again that they be shareholders in addition to being “officers or servants”, and using the funds “to purchase a dwelling house”. ... The utilization of the company bank account was precisely for the purpose of respecting the provisions of paragraph 15(2)(a) of the Act — again one of those provisions is that he should be a shareholder. ... The only matter at issue, therefore, is whether there was a benefit conferred by the loan being granted “interest free” — since that aspect of the matter is not equally sheltered simply by virtue of subsection 15(2) of the Act. ...

Contentions For the appellant: — All of the transactions are bona fide transactions and, as such, do not constitute an indirect or direct benefit to the taxpayer. — In any event, if it were an indirect or direct benefit to the taxpayer, the taxpayer ought to be entitled to counter-account from that amount the sums actually due to the taxpayer from Garden City Press Limited, which exceeded the amount of the deemed benefit in any event. ... The appellant (even though president of GCP Ltd) had objected to this as a partner in VMS, becuase it might reflect adversely on the partnership — nevertheless, Mr Brown insisted upon it. ... He was fully aware that the account could not be collected by the corporation — to do so would put the partnership into bankruptcy. ...

. — Payments outside Ceylon made to or for the benefit of non-residents are described in subsection 8(1) of the Exchange Control Act of Ceylon as follows: Except with the permission of the Bank, no person resident in Ceylon shall, subject to the provisions of this section, make any payment outside Ceylon to or for the credit of a person resident outside Ceylon. — Payments in Ceylon made to or for the benefit of non-residents are described in section 7 of the said Act as follows: Except with the permission of the Bank, no person shall in Ceylon—(a) make any payment to or for the credit of a person resident outside Ceylon, or (b) make any payment to or for the credit of a person resident in Ceylon by order or on behalf of a person outside Ceylon, or (c) place any sum to the credit of any person resident outside Ceylon. ... The appellant has sought the permission of the Central Bank of Ceylon to receive the rental payments in question, but the Bank has refused such permission. — In accordance with subsection 31(1) of the said Exchange Control Act of Ceylon, the Bank directed that all sums otherwise payable to the appellant after his departure from Ceylon be paid into a block account at the Bank of Ceylon. In January, 1975, this direction was rescinded and no payments whatsoever have been made into the said block account subsequent to December, 1974. — He did not receive either directly or constructively any rental income from any property in Ceylon and says further that by virtue of sections 7 and 8 of The Exchange Control Act of Ceylon, the appellant was legally prevented from receiving, using or enjoying any portion of the said rental income. — In the alternative, only one-half of such rental income ought to be included in the appellant’s income in each of the relevant taxation years since the rental property which produced rental income was held by the appellant jointly with another person. — In the further alternative, the appellant is entitled to obtain the relief provided under subsection 161(6) of the Income Tax Act. — In the further alternative, the appellant is entitled to obtain the relief provided by section 126 of the Income Tax Act. — In the further alternative, the appellant is entitled to the deductions permitted by division C in connection with the said rental property in the computation of the appellant’s taxable income. ...

The evidence on the points in contention can be summarized as follows: Item (a) — Bills and receipts were submitted totalling some $2,538.23 of the $2,818.94 originally claimed. ... Item (f) — Long-distance telephone calls from home and office and pay phones were more than $12 per week according to the appellant. ... (b) Automobile expenses » $784.48 Again the $95.45 for which there are no vouchers is. disallowed, but the $363.09 which the assessor apparently found unacceptable is allowed. ...

In reply, it was the position of the respondent that: — the amounts in question had not been repaid within one year; — no arrangements, bona fide or otherwise, were made for repayment of the loan at the time the loan was made, or at any time, for repayment within a reasonable time. ... The response of counsel for the respondent was simple and direct — the “factory loan” was just that — a “loan” — it was not a “payment” that fell within the ambit of paragraph 15(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. ...

(Signed) CYRILLE A LAFERRIERE — seller (Signed) CLAUDE DESJARDINS — buyer (Signed) PAUL-AIMÉ SAURIOL — buyer 4.06 The amount paid for the appellant’s rights in the partnership came to $183,563, payment of which was made over a four-year period in accordance with contract A-2. ... It came to about $30,000 and is not relevant to the case at bar. 4.07 The amount of $183,563 was determined by the partnership auditors, the firm of accountants Samson, Belair & Associés. ... Act — case law — comments 5.1 Act The chief sections concerned in the case at bar are section 34, subparagraphs 53(1)(e)(i), 53(2)(c)(i), (ii) and (v), paragraph 54(b), 96(1)(f), subsections 96(1.1), 96(1.2), and 96(1.4). ...

The appellant prejudiced his own appeal by his comments relating to the point in time when he sold the property and the reason for that sale — I quote: “reaching my investment objective, they had appreciated in value rapidly”. ... The appellant had only one continuous purpose in mind — to buy the land, to hold it, and to sell it at a profit. ... The appellant in this instance purchased land with the sole and single purpose of selling it at an appropriate time, when he was offered sufficient money to make his acquisition thereof profitable — he accomplished that. ...

This amount, detailed in a letter dated May 30,1977 and sent to the appellant by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, is as follows: State Farm Mutual State Farm State Farm Automobile Life Life Fire & Casualty $2,942.06 $628.50 $1,643.53 Termination Payments 1976 300.00 Portion of Incentive & Thrift 1,420.85 1.78 119.15 Earnings from Dec/75 $4,662.91 $630.28 $1,762.68 Paid 1976 $4,662.91 $ 630.28 $1,762.58 $7,055.87 1976 Total $5,214.09 1975 Total $1,541.78 Held ’75 Paid 1976 $6.755.87 1976 Inc & Thrift 300.00 $7,055.87 T4A Amount 3.05 In the same letter, the writer informs the appellant:... ... It is logical for you to assume that in fact this would be what you may refer to as pension, however, the amount of money being paid as Termination Payments is based on service compensation for the Automobile Company and commissions of the Fire & Casualty Company and for the Life Company will be an amount equal to servicing payments. 3.06 The agent’s agreement was not filed as evidence. 3.07 In filing his 1974 income tax return, Mr Walman described himself, at page 1, as self-employed. ...

After the*purchase of said lot, which alone would not have been large enough for the erection of a warehouse, the appellant purchased two adjoining parcels of land — one on September 9, 1964 and the other on October 21 of the same year. ... At the hearing, Mr L H Noble, president of the appellant company, testified that the zoning was in good order — which explained why the appellant did not make any application to have the by-laws changed. ... Its shareholders and directors — especially Mr Lea who had been involved in real estate transactions before — knew the area very well and were not unaware of the fact that the actual zoning of the lots was a deterrent to the appellant’s project. ...