Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

Background The basic facts are not in dispute and can be briefly summarized as follows: —The appellant is a Canadian corporation incorporated in Canada to carry on business; —The chief shareholder of the appellant is F Califano; — In 1970 the appellant acquired two parcels of real estate in the Township of Markham for a total consideration of $52,500; — Both of the said two parcels of real property were forcibly taken by the Department of Public Works of the Government of Canada on January 30, 1973; — By way of total compensation (exclusive of interest), the appellant received for the said forcible taking the sum of $96,512.69, which sum was received by the appellant in the following amounts on the following dates: Date Amount received 24 April, 1973 $27,321.89 10 October, 1973 15,108.00 12 October, 1973 19,262.00 28 July, 1974 22,614.00 10 May, 1975 12,206.80 — During ownership, the appellant had incurred certain carrying costs associated with the property. ... Evidence The chief (and controlling) shareholder of Gianita Holdings Limited, Mr Califano, confirmed the general background facts and in examination and cross-examination, added that he had: — been in the building construction business in Italy; —come to Canada in 1967, acquired landed immigrant status and although he returned to Italy to wind up his business affairs there, he came back to Canada two or three times a year for the next few years to maintain that status, until he finally became a Canadian resident; —substantial cash from winding up his businesses in Italy, which he gradually transferred to Canada; — incorporated a company (not the appellant) in 1968 and through that company, in the same year (1968), purchased 31 acres of vacant agricultural land in the general vicinity of the Village of Markham, in the Province of Ontario. This property was subsequently sold in the year 1974; — incorporated the appellant company in 1969 and acquired through it the subject property consisting of two parcels of vacant agricultural, unserviced land, totalling some 23 acres about six or seven miles from the Village of Markham; — no prior knowledge of the expropriation of the subject property by the Government of Canada; — no particular purpose or intention in mind in either acquisition—specifically the one under appeal in this hearing—other than to safely invest the money he was bringing from Italy. ...

Previously the appellant had been involved in the franchise business with Red & White and Lucky Dollar groups. ... He stated that he had never succeeded in selling a commercial building at the municipal assessment, and he put the following valuations on the property at issue as at the beginning of 1968: (a) cost of replacement less depreciation — $47,500 (b) with respect to the income approach — $46,786 (c) according to comparable properties sold in the neighbourhood — $46,000 to $47,000. ... In a case where property comes into the hands of a shareholder without the shareholder giving adequate value in return — and this may happen in the course of the winding up or discontinuance of a business — subsection 81(1) would come into operation. ...

—When the facts are fully assessed concerning these properties, the following emerges: Sale of 30 acres @ $2,500 $ 75,000 Sale of 10 acres @ $10,500 105,000 Selling (without Selling Expense adjustment) $180,000 VD Value as accepted by Edmonton Office 200,000 Capital Loss for tax purposes $(20,000) —The primary intent was to use the property for the building of a residence. ...

—The appellant, in computing its taxable income for the 1969, 1970 and 1971 taxation years, sought to deduct expenses for business travel as set out below: 1969 $3,609 1970 $6,490 1971 $8,702 —The respondent, in calculating the appellant’s taxable income for the 1969, 1970 and 1971 taxation years, allowed expenses for business travel as set out below: 1969 $ 659.82 1970 $ 456.96 1971 $1,537.39 and the respondent applied penalties for the taxation years 1969 and 1971. ... BETWEEN: JET METAL PRODUCTS LIMITED, hereinafter referred to as the Party of the FIRST PART — and — H A ASTLETT & CO (CANADA) LTD, hereinafter referred to as the Party of the SECOND PART Whereas the Party of the Second Part has sold and delivered to Norsofco Group Limited, certain merchandise more particularly described in invoices addressed to the said Norsofco Group Limited. ... SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED JET METAL PRODUCTS LIMITED — in the presence of— Witnessed by (Signature) (Signed) Keith Alexander H A ASTLETT & CO (CANADA) LTD. ...

He also sold for B & H Homes and S & S Homes (SN p 42). He said that with Camelot he “did a little of the sales work, but I really didn't sell very many of my own houses. ... It’s to — it establishes, in my mind, the normal interest accruing to ownership really. ... “It was widely held that it would not be — this would not be possible after 1971.” ...

The appellant made a few adjustments to that figure, which adjustments were shown on a statement called “T1 Information — 1978”, and ended up with his share of that profit as $16,435. ... The Minister looked into the partnership — apparently on a desk audit basis as, by the time of reassessing the appellant, no one had been to see him — and adjusted his income from the partnership by adding to it the sum of $15,488 so that all the income of the partnership was assessed in the hands of the appellant. ...

The CDA for the first 1978 period was calculated by the Appellant as follows: CUMULATIVE DEDUCTION ACCOUNT — March 31, 1978 Cumulative Deduction Account at the end of the preceding taxation year $(90,539) Add: Taxable Income (Cannot be a negative amount) $16,650 16,650 73,889 Cumulative Deduction Account at the End of the Tax ation Year $(73,889) The Second 1978 period was calculated as follows: CUMULATIVE DEDUCTION ACCOUNT — June 5, 1978 Cumulative Deduction Account at the end of the preceding year $(73,929) Add: Taxable Income (cannot be a negative amount) $45,499 45,499 $(28,430) Cumulative Deduction Account at the End of the Tax ation Year (28,430) The respondent, in his reply to notice of appeal, alleged: 2. ... In answer to the appellant’s argument of ambiguity- hence a broader interpretation should be applied in favour of the taxpayer — counsel for the respondent simply stated that the section being considered was an exempting provision which precluded any consideration of ambiguity in favour of the taxpayer. ...

On common consent, the following chart of the shareholdings of the companies was submitted as Exhibit A-1: Share Holdings Taxation Years 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977 & 1978 ENTREPRISES ATOMIC ATOMIC ROCLAR ROCLAR Royal Lefebvre Royal Lefebvre Clarence Lefebvre 100 common shares 125 common shares 99 common shares (49.5%) (42%) (49%) Wanda Lefebvre Clarence Lefebvre Marie-Rose Lefebvre 100 common shares 125 common shares 99 common shares (49.5%) (42%) (49%) Jean Claude Ruel Aurèle Lefebvre Jean Truel 1 common share 50 common shares 4 common shares (1%) (16%) (2%) The underlined names indicate the groups chosen by the Department of National Revenue. ... For support, Counsel referred in particular to the following cases: The Queen v Mars Finance Inc, J Euclide Perron Limitée and Les Immeubles Perron Limitée, [1980] CTC 216; 80 DTC 6069; John B Holden v MNR, [1928-34] CTC 116; 1 DTC 218; MNR v Holden, 1928-34 CTC 127 & 129; 1 DTC 234, 243; [1948] CTC 265; 4 DTC 491; The Executors of the Estate of David Fasken v MNR, [1948] Ex CR 580; Buckerfield’s Limited, Green Valley Fertilizer & Chemical Co Ltd, Westland Elevators Limited and Burrard Terminals Limited v MNR, [1964] CTC 504; 64 DTC 5301. ...

History As portrayed by the appellant in his notice of appeal, the salient points are: — From 1973 to 1976 I was in the employment of Manitoba Hydro and—as a condition of employment—I was also member of the MANITOBA CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION FUND. ... The lump sum return from the superannuation fund was transferred to an existing registered retirement savings plan. — REVENUE CANADA has maintained so far that I was entitled to a retirement savings plan deduction of $3,500 plus the sum roll-over of $3,938.06; they have explained that the amount of $3,500 was applicable in view of my membership in a superannuation fund for part of 1976 and they have rejected my argument that the allowable deduction should be $5,500 plus the lump sum roll-over. Contentions For the appellant: — REVENUE CANADA would unfairly discriminate against employees on construction projects if it would insist on the lower deduction limit. ...

In 1967, 1968 and 1969 the appellant borrowed, on the security of a second mortgage, the sum of $30,000 from Smith & Gibbons and $25,000 from Egret Acceptance Corporation to finance further projects of two associated companies—Marcall Construction Limited (Marcall) and Gorell Investments Limited (Gorell), controlled by the Calligaro family. As at December 31, 1969 these liabilities were on the books of the appellant as follows: Smith & Gibbons $30,000 Egret Acceptance Corporation $25,000 $55,000 The members of the Calligaro family were not sophisticated businessmen and did not get proper professional advice. ... Counsel for the Minister, in his argument, submitted that that part of the funds borrowed in the second re-financing to pay off the Smith & Gibbons loan was not used to earn income, but to discharge an existing liability. ...