Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

That was not the case according to counsel since the Income Tax Act provided relief to a taxpayer for capital — either personal or borrowed — which was injected into a business, because the capital so injected was used to acquire assets, either inventory as a direct expense, or fixed assets which were depreciable; or to pay for business expenses — and any losses resulting from such operations were appropriately deductible from income. ...

The reason advanced by Mr Mirotta for the delay was the difficulty his new accountant (Bryon H Bates of Frank J Jaglowitz, chartered accountant, Cambridge, Ontario) had experienced in obtaining information from the former accountants (MacGillivray & Co, chartered accountants, Port Colborne, Ontario) in order to file the objection. Mr Mirotta’s application to the Tax Review Board reads as follows: APPLICATION TO REVIEW BOARD FOR THE EXTENSION FOR FILING NOTICE OF OBJECTION Domenic Mirotta — SIN 436-251-185 The notice of objection was not filed for the above taxpayer within the prescribed 90 day period for the following reasons: 1. ... Application allowed. 1 (Board’s note — Exhibits not reproduced) ...

The Board finds little reason to refer to the specifics of the amounts at issue, both parties having been in accord, but does note that the sections of the Act in dispute refer to section 125 and Regulation 5202 — essentially, the manufacutring and processing credit that is available to Canadian corporations. ... The critical portion of the Act is in section 5202 of the Regulations — the definition of “cost of manufacturing and processing capital” — and it reads for the record: “cost of manufacturing and processing capital” of a corporation for a taxation year means 100/85 of that portion of the cost of capital of the corporation for that year that reflects the extent to which each property included in the calculation thereof was used directly in qualified activities of the corporation during the year, but the amount so calculated shall not exceed the cost of capital of the corporation for the year. ... The Act does not say “required for use in qualified activities”, which is the basis of the appellant’s argument — the Act says specifically “used directly in qualified activities”. ...

The point at issue in each appeal is exactly the same — the disallowance by the Minister of National Revenue of a charge made by the taxpayers for legal fees. ... And further... they outline what occurs under that section where they state: “... there is a two step fiction enacted by section 70 subsection (5) of the Act. ... I would agree with counsel for the appellants that if indeed actual title to the property is to be transferred, then there would in all probability be some costs — and the legal costs at issue in these appeals might be included. ...

In computing his income for the taxation years in question, the appellant reported capital gains from the disposition of certain real estate as follows: taxation year capital gain 1975 $ 9,204.50 1976 $18,363.96 1977 $17,919.13 3. In assessing the appellant for the taxation years in question, the Minister of National Revenue added the following sums to the appellant’s income: additional taxation year income 1975 $ 4,602.25 1976 $ 9,181.96 1977 $17,648.73 4. ... The appellant filed as Exhibits A-1 and A-2 dated May 17, 1978 and April 1979 respectively, one-year leases for the properties at 86 Carruthers Street and at RR 6 — Highway 31 in the City of Ottawa. ...

I would like to quote Exhibit 5 to show the unreported income, the revied total income and the percentage: Exhibit 5 Taxation Unreported Revised % of unreported year income total income income to revised total Income 1973 $18,308.51 $95,967.24 19.08 1974 $ 7,272.00 $116,755.81 6.23 1975 $11,578.99 $114,005.71 10.16 1976 $24,524.16 $109,927.46 22.31 61,683.66 436,672.22 15% Taxation Unreported Reported total % of unreported year income income income to reported total income 1973 $18,308.51 $ 73,764.00 24.82 1974 7,272.00 103,675.00 7.01 1975 11,578.99 96,487.00 12.00 1976 24,524.16 78,470.44 31.13 $61,683.66 $352,396.44 17.50% The Board was not impressed by the appellant’s nor by his accountant’s testimony. ...

The respondent asserted: — The appellant by an agreement of purchase and sale sold his residence known for municipal purposes at 765 Woodcrest Blvd in the City of London, in the Province of Ontario, to Sifton Properties Ltd for a consideration of the amount of $46,072.50. — The appellant did not incur any commission expense, legal fees or mortgage discharge fee expense on the sale to Sifton but to the extent that any such expenses were incurred, such expenses were incurred and paid by the said Sifton Properties Ltd. — The expenditures claimed were not amounts paid by the appellant within the meaning of subsection 62(1) of the Income Tax Act. ... Harrison because his term also refers back to the word “paid” — it does not provide a substitute or an alternate to payment.) ...

The appellant submitted that: — Work in progress is not income in these circumstances; — Section 36 of the Judges’ Act prohibits and forbids a judge from engaging in any business or occupation other than his judicial duties. In assessing the appellant, the respondent relied inter alia, upon sections 3, 9 and 34 of the Income Tax Act SC 1970-71-72, c 63, as amended, and contended that: — the amount of $35,183.38 became receivable by virtue of of paragraph 34(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act during the appellant’s 1974 taxation year and was properly included by virtue of paragraph 34(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act in computing the appellant’s income from a business that was a profession for his 1974 taxation year. ... The perception that subsection 28(5) is applicable to the present case (a profession) is strengthened by a review of the predecessor section in the Old Act — 85F(4) which is identical to the current subsection 28(5). ...

EXPENSE STATEMENT — RELEVE DE DEPENSES Name of Employee Project No Nom de (’Employé CONRAD P GODBOUT No de Projet TRIP TO HAITI Date of Expenses Amount Date des Description Montant Date des Dépenses Montant June 4. 76 TOURIST CARDS 3 PERSONS 6.00 July 3. 76 HAITI AIR 2 PERSONS 36.00 d American Airlines Waybill 56.65 5/7/76 LIVING ACCOMMODATION PORT AU PRINCE 450.00 28/6/76 International Car Rental 120.00 3/7/76 Restaurant Receipt 4.20 24/6/76 India Palace 15.00 1/7/76 Pension Brise de Mer 40.00 Misc. Expenses 150.00 Tips & Gratuities 50.00 Misc. Meals 100.00 Entertainment 200.00 Gasoline for rental cars 75.00 Also misc. charges — Taxis & Transportation 100.00 1,402.00 Total Amount of Expenses Montant Total des Dépenses: $1,402.00 DATE 20/7/76 Signature Conrad P God bout It is quite possible that the appellant worked during the weeks of vacation he spent in Haiti, and that certain of his expenses are deductible (possibly even all of them). ...

. — Division B, Subdivision D of the Act deals with specific sources of income, and... specific types of receipts are applicable to all taxpayers, and provided that amounts can be categorized as falling within the specific subsections of section 56, such an amount is taxed thereunder and not under the general “charging” provisions of the Act. — In order to determine whether a given amount should be treated under paragraph 56(1)(n), it is necessary to interpret that section in light of the facts of the payment. — In Webster’s New World Dictionary, The College Edition, published in 1970, at 461 the word “endeavor” is defined as “duty as in... to make an earnest attempt; to try to achieve; to try (to do something)”, and as a noun, ‘‘an earnest attempt or effort”. — In undertaking the course of studies leading to the examinations which the taxpayer wrote successfully during the taxation year ending December 31, 1976, she was successful in the field of effort or “field of endeavor” ordinarily carried on by her in her daily work as an employee of Excelsior. ...