Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

Contentions The appellant contended that: — the loan made to it by the Bank of Montreal on June 22, 1977 constituted borrowed money which was in fact used for the purpose of earning income from a business, and that — the amounts of $2,905.56 and $10,216.03 paid by the appellant in respect of interest in its 1977 and 1978 taxation years respectively, were paid by the appellant pursuant to a legal obligation to pay interest on borrowed money used for the purpose of earning income from business and were proper deductions under the provisions of subparagraph 20(1)(c)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The respondent contended that: — the interest amounts were not paid on borrowed money used for the purpose of earning income from a business or property within the meaning of subparagraph 20(1)(c)(i) of the Act. ... It was not possible for him to determine with certainty that the $100,000 from the Bank of Montreal had gone to pay part of the $116,200 loan to the Thompsons, or to the retirement of the bank loan — both transactions had taken place in the regular company bank account at about the same time. ...

Indeed the applicant had properly filed Notices of Objection to reassessment on two previous occasions: February 23, 1979 and October 2, 1979 and it is most unlikely — particularly since Mr Mulvihill had been retained by the applicant in March 1980 and had at the time the benefit of legal counsel — that the applicant was unable to appreciate the significance of the 90-day time limit in which to file its Notices of Objection. ... It would have been a simple matter and indeed a normal procedure for the applicant (or either one of its officers) to file the Notices of Objection or alternatively to inform the accountant and the legal advisor — who had been retained to assist the applicant with its tax problems — as soon as the Notices of Assessment had been received. This the applicant failed to do and Mr Mulvihill became aware of the Notices of Reassessment in October 1981 — some five and a half months after that, on December 8, 1981. ...

He calculated his capital gain on the following basis: Proceeds of dispostion $80,000 Less legal fees re sale of land $ 200 Gross proceeds $79,800 Less ACB of NW 26-27-16 as of January 1,1972 $16,000 Less ACB of residence as of January 1,1972 $30,000 Less ACB of SE 33-27-16 as of March 13,1974 $11,200 $57,200 Capital gain $22,600 The Minister, on the other hand, calculated the appellant’s taxable capital gain on the sale of the farm land in the following manner: Proceeds from sale of land $80,000.00 Less: Legal fees for sale of land $ 200.50 $79,799.50 Less: Fair Market Value of buildings 10,000 Less: Adjusted Cost Base of land sold ($10,000 + $11,200) 21,200.00 $48,599.50 Less: Residence exemption 6,000.00 Capital gain $42,599.50 In summary, the Minister valuated the north west quarter 26-27-16-W2, as of Valuation Day, at $10,000, and the south east one-quarter 33-27-16-W2, as the adjusted cost base, at $11,200, being the amount paid by the appellant to Marathon Realty Company Limited in March 1974. ... He gave as a correlation and final estimate of value: (1) Cost Approach — Land $10,000 — Buildings 10,800 TOTAL $20,800 (2) Market Data Approach $19,000 (3) Final Value Estimate $20,000 (4) Value Estimate Breakdown — Land $10,000 — Buildings 10,000 TOTAL $20,000 Although Mr Orthner was subjected to an extensive and sometimes rambling cross-examination, the more that he was cross-examined, the more forcible his evidence became in support of his views as to valuation of lands and buildings. ...

He says in his evidence that the general economic conditions of Calgary, in that particular area, were good, that the city was expanding in that direction and the future of the restaurant was bright, particularly — and I emphasize this because of the result that I eventually hope to come to — on account of the approach of the two brothers as compared to the approach of the father to the operation of the business. ... There is no question whatsoever from the evidence of Mr Pringle — and I can draw inferences from that evidence — that the Seto brothers really made this business take off. ... In doing so, I have come to a figure of $9,000 each, which, when rounded off with calculations. and allowances for the 21% rate of tax, has brought me to the conclusion — notwithstanding that my arithmetic may be slightly out in some portions — that a proper valuation of goodwill for this business should be rounded off at $26,000 rather than the $55,000 chosen in the first instance. ...

Mr Lund tried to comply with their requirements and prepared a new set of plans — again in respect of a 108-suite apartment building. ... According to the evidence adduced, most of the relevant allegations of the respondent were proven — which is more than enough to dismiss the appeal. ... On the other hand, both Mr Lund and Mr Goddard had some experience in real estate transactions — especially Mr Goddard who was an experienced real estate agent. ...

Contentions For the appellant: — The taxpayer disputes the computation of the “additional benefit”. ... The vessel had been available to him for his own use, at his discretion — certainly no one else had control of, or hindered his access to it. ... The Minister’s assessment was simply unsupportable — there was no additional cost to allocate proportionately to Mr Houle. ...

In his understanding certain things were obvious: — he was a shareholder in the company, — he participated in the management of the company, — he had arranged his day-to-day work so that he could go to the office of the company at least once a day, — he would later have the possibility of acquiring more shares. ... He didn't seem to really follow the purpose of the note or I believe he indicated quite clearly he didn't want to — wouldn’t expect to claim back on the note — make a demand, simply because why would he do that, he had bought shares, he has indicated this is his understanding, and yet you have indicated a practice otherwise. ... Law — Case Law — Analysis 4.01 Law The provisions of the Income Tax Act which are involved in the present case are 3(e), 40(2)(g) and 50(1) and read as follows: 3. ...

That sum of $10,000, if there had been children — there are none — but it could go to the lady’s heirs.She could remarry, she could perhaps, she has relatives; now, that sum — and this was the argument made in Veliotis — alimony is something connected with a person and it can cease. ... When he says that that seems to be a complete settlement and so on, I should like to make clear here that I reaffirmed in my evidence that in Our marriage contract there was in fact $6,000 allocated for furniture and all that, and that is an agreement — clearly, even if it’s written, it’s an agreement — that I think anybody would make on getting married so as not to leave the spouse with financial problems in case of death; she would have debts to pay, even if it’s only the funeral expenses so that there was a gift made in contemplation of death for $10,000. ... What is more, since the fact remains that for the years in question, you still have to realize, the person was not in a normal state — and talking of nervous depression, when he says, the other side says that there is no connection, then, let us go back to four months previously, to the month of October 1976; between October and January, about four or five months. ...

Facts According to the Evidence 3.01 During the taxation years 1972, 1973 and 1974, the appellant was Carrying on a scrap metal business under the registered name of L & F Metals Co on 4710 Drolet Street, Montreal. ... They also found a weigh bill in the name of L Peters which corresponded with the receiving slip in the name of L & F Metals Co. 3.26 Another witness, Mr Gilles Bouchard, filed as exhibit R-10, documents issued by the Department of Vehicles & Automobiles to the effect that immatriculation vehicle numbers F314-353 and F253-771 were registered in the name of L & F Metals Co. 4. ... The same amounts were on receiving slips or weigh bills in the names of L & F Metals Co, L & F or L Peters. ...

Thus, it seems to be perfectly clear that the Minister, in making an assessment under the above circumstances, is bound to decide — whether or not a business is being carried on for profit or with a reasonable expectation of profit — on the basis of the facts and figures immediately available to him and pertinent to the taxation year being assessed. ... The business of farming for the down-to-earth purpose of making a profit — so far as the ordinary individual taxpayer is concerned — is usually regarded as a serious, full-time occupation. ... However, he seems to have the erroneous notion that the original cost of putting his farm property in a good state of repair and making it usable was an income expense and, therefore, chargeable against income — which in this case was his salaried earnings. ...