Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

Now, if I may just turn momentarily to paragraph 6(1)(a), it is my alternate submission that if the Board finds that it is not satisfied or he does not fall on these facts in paragraph 6(1)(e) and subsection 6(2), that the standby charge which has been assessed by the Minister should be included in his income pursuant to 6(1)(a) as the value of the benefit that he received from the use of this car, and that is consistent with the approach that was adopted in Bouchard — in Harman, and is referred to in Bouchard. ... It strikes me, however, that any alternative argument proposed by the respondent under paragraph 6(1)(a) would be identical for all practical purposes to the contention of the taxpayer in this appeal — that he wished to be assessed under paragraph 6(1)(a). Any alternative argument advanced by counsel now under paragraph 6(1)(a) might be debatable — the amount at issue has been assessed as a stand-by charge under paragraph 6(1)(e) and not as a benefit under paragraph 6(1)(a). ...

Contentions The appellant claimed the deductions under paragraph 8(1)(f) of the Income Tax Act and based his claim on the fact that: — he was employed in the capacity of store manager with the responsibility of selling clothing; — he was ordinarily required to carry out his duties away from his employer’s place of business. These duties were: —soliciting and meeting prospective contract customers —deliver to customers —making promotional public appearances —exchanging stock between stores —company sales meeting — he was remunerated strictly on commissions; —he did not receive any allowance or reimbursement for these expenses. ... The first specific condition —“... was required to pay his own expenses” is immediately attached in subparagraph 8(1)(f)(i) to the preamble phrase “under the contract of employment” but, in my view, it does not make that the only one of the four conditions which must be founded in the contract of employment. ...

Notice of Appeal: The notice of appeal was filed by the firm of Johnson Cross Yandsik, public accountants, on behalf of the appellant and reads as follows: I have been asked by the above taxpayer to appeal to the Board this reassessment on the following grounds: — the condominium in question was purchased in 1975 as an investment. — at the time of purchase the taxpayer was in the process of a marital separation and the purchase of the condominium was an attempt to shelter his capital from legal attack by his wife’s lawyer and also to provide a vehicle for financial improvement which would be required upon his retirement at the end of 1976. — the condominium was purchased in an area of the city that was particularly stable and consequently it appeared that property values would substantially appreciate. — the purchase agreement prohibited any rental or resale for a period of one year and consequently upon the expiration of that period, the property was listed with Gale Agencies on June 3, 1976 for an asking price of $48,900. — The property was subsequently sold in 1977 for $40,000 resulting in a capital loss of $14,385. ...

The appellant retained the services of Penny & Keenleyside Appraisals Ltd to establish a value of the subject land. ... Mr Penny concluded that the value of the property was $2000 per unit ($2000 X 482 = $964,000). On the basis of his comparable sales, Mr Folstad arrived at a basic value of $1.80 per square foot ($1.80 X 361,579 = $650,000±). ...

The audited balance sheet of the appellant as at July 31, 1967 showed the following items: Investments at cost 12th Avenue Building Ltd Shares $ 6.00 Advances 27,872.00 Allied Development Corp Ltd Shares 60.00 Advances 24,047.04 The audited Statement of Net Gain on Sale of Shares for the year ended July 31, 1967 contains the following information: Allied Development 12th Avenue Corporation Ltd. ... The following words were spoken by counsel for the respondent: Now, there is one thing — I don’t know whether it is in order or not — but if you are in some doubt as to the taxability of the transaction involving the shares of Allied and Twelfth Avenue Building, there is nothing improper about holding your judgment open till the matter is finally settled since that appears to be one of the main issues. ... In the appeal at bar, the appellant’s investment in two equities is shown in its balance sheet as of July 31, 1966 as follows: 12th Avenue $ 6 a 25% interest Allied 60 a 3% interest Total, at cost $66 Assuming that all shares in 12th Avenue and Allied were issued at the same price to the other shareholders, we get the following equity picture: 12th Avenue $ 24 Allied (CN Tower) 2,000 $2,024 The total ownership equity in 12th Avenue, a large office building, is $24 and the equity ownership in the CN Tower, one of the largest buildings in Western Canada is $2,000. ...

For the appellant’s residence: (a) heating $ 445.81 565.56 (b) electricity $ 566.58 377.72 2. Other expenses $ 157.55 1,091.49 3. Salary and materials (a) basement of the appellant’s residence $ 733.00 1,617.80 (b) Rochette house $5,498.00 17,260.28 In addition, penalties were imposed for the said years in the amounts of $287.17 (1974) and $1,191.32 (1975). 3.16 As a result of the notice of appeal and the agreements made at the hearing, only the amounts of $5,498 (1974) and $17,260.28 (1975) relating to the Rochette house were the subject of the appeal, as well as the penalties relating to those amounts. ... Allan George Watts & Antoinette Cecile Watts v MNR, 27 Tax ABC 432; 61 DTC 592; 10. ...

In Heap & Partners (Nfld) Limited v MNR, 42 Tax ABC 278; 66 DTC 772, the Tax Appeal Board decided that payments made by the parent company to cover guaranteed loans to its subsidiary were made for producing income and were deductible. ... These loans were the only working capital the American subsidiary ever had with the exception of the sum of $1,000 invested by Stewart & Morrison Limited for the acquisition of all of the issued share capital of its subsidiary. The money was lost and the losses were capital losses to Stewart & Morrison Limited. ...

IRC v Paget, 1938, 1 All ER 392; Wigmore v Thomas Sommerson & Sons (1926), 1 KB 131; No 729 v MNR, 26 Tax ABC 107; 61 DTC 137. ... Frederick T Smye Turning finally to the specifics of this particular appeal, the essential evidence as understood by the Board is as follows: —The appellant is an insurance salesman; — In early December 1975, he ordered $27,000 of Government of Canada bonds from McLeod, Young, Weir & Company Limited, stockbrokers; —On December 12, 1975, he paid $27,965.34 by certified cheque (including an amount for accrued interest); — He took possession of the bonds on that date; —The bond numbers were: F56E15458, E15193, 006780, 006651, 004907, 006627, 006748. — He delivered them to his bank the same day as quickly as possible. ... A.... the amount of the cheque had to be for the twenty-seven (thousand) nine sixty-five and if there actually was a loan, | really can’t say. ...

The decision was based solely on insurance broking and not on tax consideration because “... ... Law — Cases at Law — Analysis 4.01 Law The main provisions of the Income Tax Act involved in the present case are sections 3, 4, 9; subsection 245(1) and paragraphs 18(1)(a) and (e). ... It was experienced — it managed about 10 captive insurance companies in Bermuda. 4. ...

Again certain quotations summarize his findings: Q Now, Mr Marriott, the issue here is that Wickett & Craig adopted the LIFO method of costing its inventory. ... The applicability of LIFO therefore, for income tax purposes, in computing the profit of Wickett & Craig falls within the provisions of section 9(1) of the Act. ... Appeal dismissed. 1 (Note *: In this Anaconda decision, the appellant was the Minister.) ...