Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

Minister of National Revenue, [1981] CTC 2302, 81 DTC 288 D E Taylor: [Translation] —This appeal which was heard in the city of Montreal (Quebec) on June 11, 1980, was brought following tax assessments in which the Minister of National Revenue refused to allow the taxpayer to deduct the following amounts, which he had paid to his wife or ex-wife Mrs Lucille Dubois, as alimony: 1970 — $5,560 1971 — $6,260 1972 — $6,260 1973 — $6,260 1974 — $4,160 1975 — $5,075 The only point at issue is whether these amounts were paid in accordance with a written settlement and/or a written agreement. ... This letter and agreement, which were produced as exhibit 1-1, read as follows: BARD, L'HEUREUX, PHILIPPON & TOURIGNY AVOCATS — BARRISTERS SAM SCHWARZ BARD, QC SUITE 309 CLAIRE L’HEUREUX-DUBE FLORENCE BUILDING JACQUES PHILIPPON 771 EAST, RUE ST-JOSEPH CHRISTINE TOURIGNY QUEBEC (2) CANADA June 26, 1969 Mrs. ... Yours truly, BARD, L’HEUREUX, PHILIPPON & TOURIGNY By: (Signed) Cl CLD/mp AGREEMENT AGREEMENT entered into in Quebec City, this day of June, 1969 BETWEEN DAME LUCILLE CHAMBERLAND, hereinafter referred to as, THE WIFE AND MR JACQUES CHAMBERLAND, hereinafter referred to as THE HUSBAND 1. ...

He also maintained school horses of his own for the purpose of providing equitation lessons. 3.03 The income and expenses for the years 1972 to 1977 were as follows: Gross Income Expenses Losses 1972 $13,023.32 $26,404.68 ($13,381.36) 1973 $21,748.05 $31,111.47 ($ 9,363.42) 1974 $24,974.87 $31,992.55 ($ 7,017.68) 1975 $ 5,696.50 $21,148.40 ($15,451.90) 1976 NIL $18,202.38 ($18,202.38) 1977 NIL $10,506.00 ($10,506.00) (Exhibit R-1) 3.04 The gross income is detailed as follows: Rent Sundry Total Total 1972 $12,679.00 $ 344.32 $13,023.32 1973 $20,256.86 $1,491.19 $21,748.05 1974 $22,739.58 $2,235.29 $24,974.87 1975 $ 5,681.50 $ 15.00 $ 5,696.50 (Exhibit R-1) 3.05 On June 4, 1973, the Government of the Province of Ontario announced its “Parkway Belt” proposals, and the farm owned by the Hibberds was included in the Parkway Belt area. ... However, the main expenses claimed for the years under appeal were as follows: 1976 1977 1977 Car and truck expenses (75%) $2,049.21 $1,409 Insurance $1,222.00 $1,324 Rent $1,810.00 $2,720 Professional services $ 560.00 $ 908 Phone $ 667.29 $ 574 Capital Cost Allowance of Truck and Tractors $2,068.16 — (Exhibit R-1) 3.13 Mr and Mrs Hibberd testified that after 1975, they still intended to operate a horse boarding venture somewhere else. ... 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 paragraphs 18(1)(a), 18(1)(h) and subsection 248(1) (definition of “farming” and “personal or living expenses”). ...

This was allocated in the following manner to the 1972 through 1976 taxation years: Church of Christ Development Co Ltd Reconciliation of Income 1972 — Net Profits previously reported $ 25,316.29 — Additional Profits- per Revised Balance Sheet 92,733.70 — Revised Taxable Income — (1/5 $590,249.92) $118,049.99 — Adjustments to Active Business Income (118,049.99) — Adjstments to Canadian Investment Income 29,248.26 — Taxable Dividends Deduction (2,189.35) — Further Revised Taxable Income 27,058.91 1973 — Net Profits previously reported 37,886.16 — Additional Profits- per Revised Balance Sheet 80,162.83 — Revised Taxable Income — (1/5 x $590,249.92) 118,049.99 — Adjustments to Active Business Income (20,301.69) — Adjstments to Canadian Investment Income 47,985.34 — Taxable Dividends Deduction (6,198.77) — Further Revised Taxable Income 139,534.87 1974 — Net Profits previously reported 19,428.64 — Additional Profits- per Revised Balance Sheet 98,621.34 — Revised Taxable Income — (1/5 x $590,249.92) 118,049.99 — Adjustments to Active Business Income (37,536.16) — Adjstments to Canadian Investment Income 43,374.62 — Taxable Dividends Deduction (11,864.85) — Further Revised Taxable Income 167,827.09 1975 — Net Profits previously reported 26,085.04 — Additional Profits- per Revised Balance Sheet 91,964.94 — Revised Taxable Income — (1/5 x $590,249.92) 118,049.99 — Adjustments to Active Business Income (76,127.21) — Adjustments to Canadian Investment Income 96,645.09 — Taxable Dividends Deduction (21,613.11) — Further Revised Taxable Income 114,954.75 1976 — Net Profits previously reported 35,619.76 — Additional Profits- per Revised Balance Sheet 82,430.22 — Revised Taxable Income — (1/5 x $590,249.92) 118,049.99 — Adjustments to Active Business Income (135,714.53) — Adjustments to Canadian Investment Income 135,033.58 — Taxable Dividends Deduction (19,035.10) — Further Revised Taxable Income 98,333.93 Further, the respondent added a taxable capital gain of $47,313.35 to the appellant’s 1974 tax return. ... The following reply dated June 5, 1958 had been received by the Company: DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE — TAXATION DIVISION 444 Sussex Drive — Ottawa 2, Ont 5th June, 1958. ... The corporation tax returns for these years were also made available to the Board and each one did contain a set of financial statements — Operating Statement and Balance Sheet — but in the appropriate space provided, it was noted by the appellant that this was a “Non-Profit” corporation — and no tax was indicated as payable. ...

On December 2, 1975, CCIG placed an order for a Government of Canada bond bearing interest at 9 Z> % per annum, maturing on June 15, 1994, for a total price of $100,502.74. ... As a result of the above transactions, the amounts at issue were included in the appellant’s tax return by using the following calculations: Effect on Each income in member’s the year portion ended Total /5 1975 1976 Interest income —received $4,750.00 $ 950.00 $ 950.00 $ 0.00 —received on sale 780.82 156.16 83.29 72.87 $5,530.82 $1,106.16 $1,033.29 $ 72.87 Interest expense — incurred on purchase of bond $4,502.74 $ 900.55 $ 900.55 $ 0.00 —bank loan interest 926.15 185.23 121.34 63.89 $5,428.89 $1,085.78 $1,021.89 $ 63.89 Net Interest Income 101.93 20.38 11.40 8.98 Gain on sale of bond Proceeds $97,500.00 Cost $96,000.00 Delivery Costs 31.35 96,031.35 1,468.65 293.73 0.00 293.73 Total gain on invest ment in bond $1,570.58 $ 314,11 $ 11.40 $302.71 Contentions The appellant submitted: —There was a bona fide acquisition of the said bonds. ... At the time the broker purchased the said bonds on behalf of CCIG, CCIG had a legal liability to the broker for the amount of the purchase price plus accrued interest. — Each member of the club, including the appellant, was jointly and severally liable for this obligation. ...

Yours truly, (Signed) Jean-Paul Dufour for the chief of Audit JPD/lh Lachapelle, Bruzzésé & Cie PIERRE LACHAPELLE ROBERT BRUZZESE, BCOM, CA Registered Public Accoutant Chartered Accountant 2103 Jean Talon St East Montreal tel: 721-9771 March 10, 1977 Revenue Canada, Taxation National Revenue Building 305 Dorchester Boulevard West 5th floor, section 51(4) Montreal, Quebec H2Z 1A6 Attn: Mr Jean-Pau I Dufour SUBJECT: ROBERT BRUZZESE Tax returns 1972-1973-1974 Dear Sir: I acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 24, 1977. ... Yours truly, (Signed) Jean-Paul Dufour for the Chief of Audit JPD/lh REGISTERED May 19, 1977 Mr Robert Bruzzese Jean-Paul Dufour 9029 Boisonnault Section 51-4 St-Léonard, Que 5th floor H1P 2X3 Tel: 283-5326 Dear Sir: Subject: Your tax returns for 1972, 1973 and 1974 Further to our letter of February 24, 1977, you have not sent us your supporting documents as requested and we have consequently verified your tax returns for the above-mentioned years, to which we intend to make the following changes: (A) Income from self-employment 1972 1973 1973 1974 1974 Expenses claimed $8,893.33 $10,080.75 $36,671.94 Less: Automobile expenses (1) 549.92 1,756.18 2,747.51 Rental expenses (2) — 1,105.00 — Stationery and printing (3) 210.31 644.34 964.25 Advertising and promotion (4) 71.21 199.87 388.32 Office maintenance and repairs (5) — — 573.10 CCA on furniture and equipment (6) — 878.88 1,024.30 Expenses disallowed $ 831.44 $ 4,584.27 $ 5,697.48 Expenses allowed $8,061.89 $ 5,496.48 $30,974.46 (1) 1973 and 1974 capital expenses disallowed. ...

Les états financiers des quatre compagnies de M Bernèche ont été déposés comme exhibits: Les Meubles de Maskinongé Inc: au 31 avril 1971 Exhibit A-9 au 31 octobre 1971 Exhibit A-5 Les Chaises Maskinongé Inc: au 31 avril 1971 Exhibit A-10 au 31 octobre 1971 Exhibit A-6 Maskinongé Furniture Transport Inc: au 31 décembre 1970 Exhibit A-7 Les Produits Maskin Inc: au 31 décembre 1970 Exhibit A-8 Ces états financiers démontrent entre autres: a) que le résultat des opérations signifie des pertes au 31/10/71 — pour Les Meubles de Maskinongé Inc ($ 84,173.01) — pour Les Chaises Maskinongé Inc ($ 2,024.76) des bénéfices au 31/12/70 — pour Les Produits Maskin Inc $ 1,008.17 — pour Maskinongé Furniture Transport Inc $ 25.68 b) que les bénéfices non répartis à la fin de la dernière période s’élèvent à — pour Les Meubles de Maskinongé Inc $ 52,288.81 — pour Les Chaises Maskinongé Inc ($ 396.05) — pour Les Produits Maskin Inc $ 9,112.22 — pour Maskinongé Furniture Transport Inc $ 18,610.41 c) que les accroissements et réductions de fonds de roulement s’établissent ainsi a la fin de la dernière période — Les Meubles de Maskinongé Inc ($100,623.95) — Les Chaises Maskinongé Inc $ 3,459.91 d) que les disponibilités, les exigibilités et les dettes à long terme à la fin de la dernière période s’établissent ainsi: Disponibilités Exigibilités D.L. Terme Les Meubles de Maskinongé Inc $ 790,289.21 $ 824,301.37 $100,971.55 Les Chaises Maskinongé Inc $ 205,578.43 $ 181,243.90 $ 57,772.92 Les Produits Maskin Inc $ 20,524.52 S$ 9,323.43 Nil Maskinongé Furniture Transport Inc $ 25,926.38 $ 18,225.93 $ 27,156.42 TOTAL $1,042,318.54 $1,033,094.63 $185,900.89 e) que le coût du bâtiment, du terrain, de l’équipement et de machinerie au 31 octobre 1971 s’élève à $618,192.20 et que la valeur non dépréciée est de $240,022.52. ... Front <& Simcoe Ltd c MRN, [1960] CTC 123; 60 DTC 1081; 15. Sa Majesté la Reine c Lagueux & Frères Inc, [1974[CTC 687; 74 DTC 6569; 16. ...

There was further evidence that all three partners filed their tax returns based on a / / / split of the partnership income. The accounting records and cancelled cheques presented, together with the testimony Pierre Couture, support the conclusion that the amount of income received by the appellant’s partners was based upon a 65-20-15% split of that income, not upon the alleged / / / arrangement. ... However, another schedule (apparently in the handwriting of the appellant and bearing no 53) portrays alleged accounts receivable at certain dates — and at December 31/71 the breakdown between the partners of these “accounts receivable” is calculated on the basis of 60/20/20, not 1/3, 1 / 1 / which would be required to support the appellant’s assertion. ...

My property is very large — 120 acres — and the income, when it materializes, will be based principally upon the two following sources: (1) the sale of wood — I am Currently seeding; (2) enclosure for the raising and hunting of deer — seeding here as well. For the respondent: — Since the acquisition of this land, no large-scale activity designed to exploit the said land and to establish thereon a commercial or farming business has been undertaken; — the appellant’s sole motivation since the acquisition of this land, and in particular with respect to the 1977 taxation year, is of a purely personal nature; — the said land has never generated any income since it was acquired, in particular during the 1977 taxation year; — in any event, the nature of the expenses incurred does not constitute a valid criterion for establishing the existence of a commercial or farming business on the appellant’s land; — the expenses incurred by the appellant in respect of the said land were not incurred for the purpose or with the reasonable expectation of deriving a profit from the operation of a business. ... The appellant’s income tax return contained the following financial statement: Jacques April 1977 Restricted farming losses — gentleman farmer No income Expenses incurred: Repairs, tools $ 806 Feed and straw 259 Wages and salaries 580 Gasoline, heating oil, oil 832 Contract labour 2,926 Repairs — vehicles 284 Meal surplus ($125) 216 Insurance (truck) 275 Taxes and permits 197 Interest 540 Poultry purchases 212 Livestock purchases 125 Electricity 26 CCA — Vehicles ($11,243) — — Wire fence ($919) — Total $7,278 Allowable for tax purposes: 1st installment — $2,500 $2,500 2nd installment — $4,778 x 50% 2,389 $4,889 Pleading Counsel for the appellant referred to the following decisions: Al Oeming Investments Ltd v MNR, [1972] CTC 2008; 72 DTC 1057; Douglas C Matthews v MNR, [1972] CTC 2643; 72 DTC 1526; Her Majesty The Queen v Douglas C Matthews, [1974] CTC 230; 74 DTC 6193. ...

In assessing Appellant for the 1976, 1977 and 1978 taxation years, Respondent relied on the following presumptions of fact, inter alia: (a) Since 1971, Appellant’s principal occupation has been the construction, sale and management of his residential rental buildings; (b) During the taxation years in question, Appellant disposed of seven of his residential rental buildings in Longueuil and St-Hubert, in particular: Date of Year of Address Construction Sale Sale LONGUEUIL 1920 rue Lavallée 1-5-1971 1976 1180-84 rue Lavallée 1-1-1972 1976 ST-HUBERT 515 rue Lamarre 1-5-1974 1977 525 rue Lamarre 1-9-1974 1977 535 rue Lamarre 1-12-1974 1978 555 rue Lamarre in 1975 1978 575 rue Lamarre in 1975 — 2214 rue Séguin in 1976 — 2234 rue Séguin in 1976 — 2284 rue Séguin in 1976 — 1385 rue Nobert in 1976 — 1420 rue Beauregard in 1977 — 10,120 boul Racine in 1977 — (c) Appellant sold the said properties during the period in question in order to finance the construction of apartment buildings on new properties purchased during his 1976, 1977 and 1978 taxation years; (d) The said properties were purchased and sold by Appellant with the benefit of his knowledge as a professional carpenter and building-permit holder who knew a great deal about the construction business; (e) At the time he purchased the said properties Appellant expected to resell them at a profit, and this was one of the chief factors that induced him to buy them; (f) When he purchased the said properties Appellant’s secondary if not principal intention was to make a profit on the sale of the residential rental buildilngs, as he in fact did during the taxation years in question. ...

. /* 3. The Facts 3.1 The appellant was at all material times the principal shareholder of Donald E Keller Limited since May 1, 1970. 3.2 Donald E Keller Limited made payments to Victoria and Grey Trust Company in the amount of $1,572 of interest in each of the appellant’s 1971, 1972 and 1973 taxation years, in respect of a mortgage secured by the appellant’s personal residence. ... Other loans were made in the following years until the incorporation, as it appears in Exhibit A-1: ANALYSIS OF V & G MORTGAGE ADVANCES Date Personal Business Total 1959 Original Mtge $ 2,079 $ 4,921 $ 7,000 1963 Increased Mtg by — 6,180 6,180 1968 Increased Mtg by — 7,530 7,530 Total advances to date $ 2,079 $18,631 $20,710 Percentages 10% 90% 100% 3.7 On March 5, 1968, an indenture in pursuance of the Short Form of Mortgages Act, between the mortgagor (the appellant and his wife, Joyce Keller, joint tenants) and the mortgagee (Victoria and Grey Trust Company) was signed concerning an amount of $15,000 (Exhibit R-1). 3.8 The different loans were made to buy equipment. ... Law — Jurisprudence — Comments 4.1 The most important subsection of the new Act concerning the case at bar is 15(1) (subsection 8(1) of the old Act). ...