Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

The appellant’s mother, Mrs Margaret Whittaker, purchased the following annuity contracts from Canada Life Assurance Company: Single stipulated Monthly payment payment August 1, 1963 — Policy #B 111-856 $31,110.00 $300.00 March 11, 1964 — Policy #B 114-049 9,857.60 100.00 The premium or purchase price was the amount indicated under the “single stipulated payment” heading. ... In the first contract, the term “certain” is — 8.6417 years. Paragraph 300(2)(d) says that it will be 9 years, being the nearest integral number of years.) ... In the second contract the term “certain” is — 8.2147 years. (The nearest integral number of years is 8.) ...

In that respect the appellant, in 1968, ploughed and tilled 3% acres of land, and for the years under appeal he reported his expenses and revenues as follows: Year Expenses Income Income Net Farming Boarding Loss Loss Hay Sales of Horses 1968 $3,288.05 $340.00 $240.00 $2,708.00 1969 2,711.62 290.00 240.00 2,181.62 The particulars of the expenses claimed by him are as follows: 1968 1969 Salaries and wages $ 239.55 $ 198.00 Interest 1,860.00 1,460.02 Building repairs 565.20 247.00 Taxes and insurance 61.97 52.95 Fence repairs 58.00 Gasoline, oil and licence 140.00 142.00 Feed and straw 93.34 117.65 Capital cost allowance 270.00 270.00 Telephone, light 224.00 During this time, the appellant was also working ten hours a day as a mechanical engineer, for which services he received a gross income of $8,447 in 1968 and $6,004 in 1969, and his wife was attending a course and working at a university so was unable to be of very much help on the farm. ... Income Tax Act, RSC 1952, c 148 — 59(1) — Date for filing notice of appeal. ...

Out of thé $12,000 selling price, the respondent considers $10,592.06 to be a reasonable price for the house, which constitutes a recapture of ($10,592.06 — $8,269.06) $2,323. 3./. ... From another standpoint, the Board accepts the appellant’s figure of $9,379.20 as a more logical selling price for the building, which establishes the recapture at ($9,379.20 — $8,269.06) $1,110.14. 4.3. Capital Loss The Board, accepting the appellant’s figures for the land; sets the capital loss at ($4,540.67 — $2,620.80) $1,919.87, half of which can be deducted. 5. ...

Contentions For the appellant: — During the relevant years, Emery was in the midst of divorce proceedings requiring financial settlements, and for security placed the property in the Company name in trust rather than taking it in his own name originally. For the respondent: —A non-arm’s length capital dispostion of the house occurred on December 31, 1974; — Between May 1972 and December 1974 Pleasure Valley was the registered owner of the house; — No trust agreement or other arrangement was entered into by the appellant prior to the Pleasure Valley acquiring the house; — Regardless of the intentions of the appellant, Pleasure Valley was the owner of the house, having acquired legal title, received rent from the appellant, entered the cost of the house on its books, and responsibility for payments of taxes, property assessments, etc. ...

In assessing, the Minister assumed that the appellant: — is a dealer in real estate and a land developer; — has engaged in numerous land transactions both personally and through corporations controlled by him; — controls large inventories of the land held for development and speculation; — in September 1973, together with Ronyx Corporation Limited (Ronyx) formed a corporation known as Ronleigh Properties Limited (Ron- leigh) with each party contributing $20 on account of 20,000 common shares each, which number of common shares (40,000) constituted the entire authorized share capital of the corporation. ... Contentions For the appellant: — The transaction was not an adventure in the nature of trade (a sale of land), disguised as a sale of shares, but a legitimate sale of a 50% interest in an ongoing business. ... There was no intention on the part of — or at least a very secondary intention on the part of Ronleigh Proeprties Limited to derive rental income from this property. ...

Whatever the appellant’s intention may have been when he acquired the wood lots, there is evidence that in 1965 and in later years the appellant decided — for whatever reason — to sell the right to cut timber on his land and thereby became involved in the timber business. ... Even if the appellant did buy the land solely for investment purposes — which, in my opinion, is far from definite — the nature of the amounts received by the appellant from the sale of timber, in the circumstances of this case, became income from a commercial source when he decided to use the property and the products of his land and began to sell timber. ... The auditor felt that the income from the timber berths — which he considered income from a business — amounted to $15,000 in each of the years under review, as indicated in the income tax returns for those years. ...

Among other case, law, counsel for the Minister referred to John W Howell v MNR, [1981] CTC 2241; 81 DTC 230, and in particular to the following quotation to be found at 2245 and 234 respectively: I am in agreement with counsel for the respondent — there is a bottom limit to the responsibility which must be accepted by even the most inexperienced or trusted taxpayer. ... I am quite convinced that a review of the 1978 income tax return alone would not have so alerted him — in fact it would probably have indicated to him that he was finally starting to show a profit — he had tax to pay. ... In the instant case the taxpayer failed to do that which a prudent man should have done — faced with a requirement to certify certain facts which were within his own knowledge — he did not review the return at all. ...

Background The appellant at all relevant times resided at 72 Thatcher Drive, in the City of Winnipeg, Manitoba (Thatcher), and was the spouse of Carl J Thor- steinson (C J T) who was himself assessed to additional income tax on September 12, 1977 with explanations relevant to this appeal as follows: 1973 Add: Net Rental Income re: 2791 Pembina Hwy (Capital Cost Allowance Claimed Amounted to $875) 617.15 1974 (1) Add: Net Rental Income Re: 2791 Pembina Hwy $498.42 Add: Capital Cost Allowance disallowed as property was disposed of on December 31, 1974 1,412.50 1,910.92 (2) Recapture of 1973 CCA 875.00 (3) Taxable Capital Gain re sale of 2791 Pem bina Hwy proceeds—December 31, 1974 $142,000.00 Cost—June 1973 67,000.00 Capital Gain $ 75,000.00 Taxable Capital Gain (1/2) $37,500.00 The amounts of additional tax assessed against C J T in the Sept 12/1977 assessments were: 1973 increase $ 516.66 1974 increase 24,098.11 1975 increase 8,165.50 32,780.27 Contentions In view of the nature of this appeal, and the issues raised therein, the Board notes first, the position of the respondent: — By transfer dated July 2, 1976 and registered in the Winnipeg Land Titles on July 9, 1976, C J T transferred his one-half interest in real property (“Thatcher”) in Winnipeg to the appellant; —The transfer was made for a consideration in excess of $32,957.22; —On the day of the transfer, C J T was liable to pay an amount not less than $32,957.22 under the Income Tax Act. For the appellant: —C J T conducted business through a limited company (Carlson Trailer Center Ltd—“Carlson” or the Company”) at the Pembina Highway address (Pembina). — Due to business difficulties, C J T declared bankruptcy in 1977 and the Department of National Revenue was one of his creditors. — The transfer by C J T of his interest in Thatcher was a mere substitution of property by the appellant commercially and bona fide undertaken and is not within the provisions of section 160 of the Income Tax Act (Canada). ... —On December 31,1974, the appellant transferred Pembina to C JT T personally for a stated amount of $142,000; C J T in turn transferred it to Carlson on the same day. — In her 1975 income tax return, the appellant declared a taxable capital gain of $37,500 (50% of $142,000- $67,000) with regard to the Pembina Sale. ...

., \ Hence, although PCI remains a distinct legal entity with a board of directors, it now employs only two persons, and they will be invited to contribute to the pension;fund of the parent company, QTC. ... We should, nevertheless, outline for you the procedure we intend to follow: — liquidate the pension fund on November 30, 1973; — calculate the units representing the employer’s and the employee’s shares for each member to this date; the employer’s share which had been allocated to members who had left the company and had cashed in their units would be allocated in proportion to the number of. units held by each current unit holder; — send a notice to each member informing him that the pension fund has been liquidated and that the units allocated to him have been transferred into an individual retirement savings plan, invested in Mutual Fund A, that is, into the same investment vehicle; The QTC will nevertheless take the appropriate action to comply with the section pertaining to deferred annuities for employees who were forty-five years of age and had made contribution for ten years when they quit PCI (this section only affects about forty-five members). — have each member complete a copy of Form TD2. ... Payments out of pension funds, etc (1) In the case of (a) a single payment (i) out of or pursuant to a superannuation or pension fund or plan the payment or payments made in a taxation year ending after 1971 and before 1974 may, at the option of the taxpayer by whom it is or they are received, be deemed not to be income of the taxpayer for the purpose of part I of the amended Act, in which case the taxpayer shall pay, in addition to any other tax payable for the year, a tax on the payment or aggregate of the payments equal to the proportion thereof that (d) the aggregate of the taxes otherwise payable by the employee under that part for the 3 years immediately preceding the taxation year (before making any deduction under section 120, 121 or 126 of the amended Act), is of (e) the aggregate of the employee’s income for those 3 years. 4.2 One fact is clear — a payment of $9,297.53 was received in 1974. ...

Act — Case Law — Analysis 4.01 Act Because of the assessment which has been issued, the sections of the Income Tax Act involved in the case at bar are subsections 15(1) and 245(2). ... Evaluation de (’Emplacement et La Technique de Parité — Principes et Concepts généraux en évaluation foncière — Min des Aff municipales, Dir Générale de l’évaluation, Sept 1974; 17. Real Estate Appraising in Canada — 2nd edition 1972 (Appraisal Institute of Canada) — “Plan of the Appraisal”, p 52 and “Appraising Subdivisions”, p 87. 4.03 Analysis 4.03.1 The burden of proof rests with the appellant. ...