Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

WILLIAM C FINCH Operating Finch’s Place (Commercial Camp) For the Year Ended December 31, 1972 INCOME $ 165 EXPENSES Camp licence $ 20 Realty taxes 83 Repairs 89 Propane gas 58 Gas and oil 51 General maintenance 165 Depreciation 1,523 1,989 NET LOSS ($1,824) NOTE: Prepared from the records of the company and supplementary information furnished without independent audit. WILLIAM C FINCH OPERATING FINCH'S PLACE (COMMERCIAL CAMP) STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1973 INCOME $ 150 EXPENSES Camp licence and registration fees $ 77 Realty taxes 106 Repairs 110 Propane gas. 23 Gas and oil 105 General maintenance 266 Depreciation 1,490 2,177 NET LOSS ($2,027) NOTE: Prepared from the records of the company and supplementary information furnished without independent audit. ...

But that is not the question posed to the Board by the appellant — that question is whether it is illegal'. ... The amount at issue is “recaptured depreciation” — simply depreciation charged incorrecty but not illegally as a deductible expense in prior years. ... The amount of depreciation charged annually is left to the discretion of the taxpayer — up to the maximum limits in each year. ...

Apparently, when the loan was made, Mrs Flusser was not a shareholder of Cascade — but when did she become a shareholder? ... Cascade put up the money but Mrs Flusser received the benefit — an advantage as a shareholder when the option expired. ... It appears from the verbal evidence that Messrs Flusser and Evans were experienced pawnbrokers and when Cascade, in which they were both shareholders with Mrs Flusser, decided to lend money — apparently to retain a tenant — they used the tools of the trade to protect the loan. ...

Law — Cases at Law — Analysis 4.01 Law Section 62 of the Income Tax Act is the provision involved in this case. ... Mr Justice Collier of the Federal Court — Trial Division said concerning these expenses: The disputed outlays were not, to my mind, moving expenses in the natural and ordinary meaning of that expression. ... I shall quote it again: “travelling costs... in the course of moving the taxpayer and members of his household from his old residence to his new residence”; the words “... in the course of moving...” are large enough to include the said expense. ...

During the 1975 and 1976 taxation years the Appellant purchased and sold the following properties: 1975 Date Price Price Gain Gain (a) 703 Village on the Green Edmonton purchase July/74 $28,100 sale Sept/75 35,000 $ 6,900 (b) 5710- 143rd Avenue Edmonton purchase Aug./74 26,000 sale Sept/75 36,000 10,000 (c) 143 Dover Meadow Calgary (Z> interest) purchase Dec./74 17,000 sale Oct./75 21,000 4,000 (d) 66 Ridgewood Edmonton purchase May/75 33,000 sale Sept/75 34,800 1,800 Total gain $22,700 1976 Date Price Price Gain (e) 181 Ridgewood Edmonton purchase Apr./75 $35,000 sale Feb./76 42,000 $ 6,300 (f) 14320- 80th Street Edmonton purchase May/76 42,000 sale Dec./76 42,000 (g) 328 Hermitage Road Edmonton purchase May/76 38,000 sale Dec./76 38,000 Total gain $ 6,300 3. ... This property was sold in July, 1976 and the sale was reported in the income tax return for 1976 of Helen M Ness. 3.03 Concerning the assumptions of fact quoted in paragraph 2.02.2, the appellant, Mr Lloyd Ness, said that: (a) he admits subparagraph (a); (b) he admits subparagraph (b); (c) he admits subparagraph (c); (d) he admits subparagraph (d); (e) he admits subparagraph (e); and (f) he denies subparagraphs (f), (g) and (h). 3.04 For the years involved the appellant, Lloyd Ness, reported rental income as follows: Profit Income Expense (Loss) 1975 $7,100 $11,314.94 ($4,214.94) 1976 $5,600 $ 9,233.66 ($3,633.66) 3.05 Mr Ness testified that in 1973, he was manager of a Co-op Service Centre. ... Law — Analysis 4.01 Law The main provisions of the Income Tax Act involved in the present case are section 3, subsections 9(1) and 248(1) definition of “business”. ...

He received accordingly (— X 0.18¢) $2,337.48 in 1977 and $2,524.14 in 1978. ... Law — Law Cases — Analysis 4.01 Law The main sections of the Income Tax Act invoked by both counsel in the prsent case are paragraph 6(1)(a), subparagraphs 6(1)(b)(i) and (vii), and subsection 6(3). ... There shall be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year as income from an office or employment such of the following amounts as are applicable: (a) Value of benefits. — the value of board, lodging and other benefits of any kind whatever (except the benefit he derives from his employer’s contributions to or under a registered pension fund or plan, group sickness or accident insurance plan, private health services plan, supplementary unemployment benefit plan, deferred profit sharing plan or group term life insurance policy) received or enjoyed by him in the year in respect of, in the course of, or by virtue of an office or employment; (b) Personal or living expenses. — all amounts received by him in the year as an allowance for personal or living expenses or as an allowance for any other purpose, except (i) travelling or personal or living expense allowances (A) expressly fixed in an Act of the Parliament of Canada, or (B) paid under the authority of the Treasury Board to a person who was appointed or whose services were engaged pursuant to the Inquiries Act, in respect of the discharge of his duties relating to such appointment or engagement, (vii) allowances (not in excess of reasonable amounts) for travelling expenses received by an employee (other than an employee employed in connection with the selling of property or negotiating of contracts for his employer) from his employee if they were computed by reference to time actually spent by the employee travelling away from (A) the municipality where the employer’s establishment at which the employee ordinarily worked or to which he ordinarily made his reports was located, and (B) the metropolitan area, if there is one, where that establishment was located, in the performance of the duties of his office or employment, (3) Payments by employer to employee. ...

He told Mr Rafaat Mahadeen: “... if (you) can get rid of those units (you) would be further ahead to sell them, because in the future it will cost (you) too much money to put a new roof on.” ... (f) They saw the buildings from the outside and they bought the properties without seeing the interior —“... that was the biggest mistake we made.” ... Law — Cases at Law — Analysis 4.01 Law The main provisions of the Income Tax Act, SC 1970-71-72, c 63, as amended, involved in the present case are section 3 and subsections 9(1) and 248(1) (definition of “business”). ...

These figures read as follows: Year Gross Income Net Losses 1973 $ 500 $ 817 1974 500 1,500 1975 115 1,294 1976 1,085 578 1977 1,391 1,133 1978 1,019 2,840 1979 4,196 1,042 3.09 The two purposes of the appellant in purchasing the farm in 1973 were to use the farmhouse as a residence and to improve the land and outbuildings to a state that he could draw an additional income from the operation “which, at a later stage, could become the only income” (paragraph 2 of Notice of Appeal). 3.10 His salary at the Royal Bank of Canada in 1980 was $29,000. ... Law — Case Law — Analysis 4.01 Law The provisions of the Income Tax Act involved in the present case are paragraphs 18(1)(a), (h), subsections 31(1) and 248(1) — definitions of “farming” and “personal or living expenses”. ...

By Notices of Reassessment dated May 28, 1979, (George Stevenson) and June 5. 1979, (Edward Schneider) the Appellant was reassessed in respect of his 1975 taxation year so as to calculate the taxable portion of capital gains taking into account the applicable reserve in the following manner: Capital Gain on Sale of Property (/ $6,012.40 Less: 1975 Reserve (Z>) 2,404.96 $3,607.44 Taxable Portion (50%) 50% of / $1,803.72 5. By Notice of Reassessment dated May 28, 1979, (George Stevenson) and June 5, 1979, (Edward Schneider), the Appellant’s 1976 taxation year was reassessed to calculate the applicable reserve in that year in the following manner: Additions: 1975 Reserve on Property Sale (Z>) $2,404.96 1976 Reserve (Z>) $2,261.80 Reduction in Reserve 143.16 Taxable Portion, 50% $ 71.58 Interest earned on Agreement for Sale (12) 960.65 6. ... Law — Cases at Law — Analysis 5.01 Law The counsel for both parties referred to paragraphs 20(1)(I) and (n), sections 38, 39, 40 and paragraph 79(h). 5.02 Case at Law The counsel for the respondent referred to the case of A Godfrey Harvey v MNR, [1980] CTC 2129; 80 DTC 1094. 5.03 Analysis 5.03.1 The agent for the appellant contended that the purchaser in the transaction “Sixteen Service Mannville Ltd” did not exist legally in January 1976 because the said company had not been incorporated. ...

Mr Philip A McNeely testified that in 1966 he and Mr Jacques Lecompte, both civil engineers, formed a partnership under the firm name and style of McNeely & Lecompte as consulting civil engineers, with offices in Rockland, Ontario. ... Apart from the added words “& Associates Ltd” in Exhibit A-2, the letterheads are basically the same. ... In the case of Losey v MNR, [1957] CTC 146; 57 DTC 1098, at page 152 [1101] Thorson, P states as follows: But the value of the goodwill of a business is what a purchaser would be willing to give for the chance of being able to keep the connection of which it consists: vide Austen v Boys (1858), 11 De G & J 626 at 635; Lindley on Partnership, 10th ed, p 523. ...