Search - 赤峰 二中 初中学区划分 2002

B B Fast & Sons Distributors LTD v. Minister of National Revenue, [1982] CTC 2002, 82 DTC 1017 Guy Tremblay:—This case was heard in Winnipeg, Manitoba on February 13, 1981. ... The Point at Issue The point at issue is whether or not the appellant, B B Fast & Sons Distributors Ltd and Willmar Window Industries Ltd were associated corporations during the 1975, 1976 and 1977 taxation years. ... H A Fawcett & Son, Limited v HMQ, [1979] CTC 303; 79 DTC 5224; affirmed by [1980] CTC 293; 80 DTC 6195; 10. ...

Minister of National Revenue, [1978] CTC 2002, 78 DTC 1024 Roland. St-Onge (orally: November 4, 1977):—The appeal of Mr Moses Deitcher came before me on November 2, 1977, at the City of Montréal, Québec, and the issue is whether, during his 1971 taxation year, the amount of recapture claimed by the appellant, while a resident of Canada, is subject to taxation in his hands as a non-resident of Canada, pursuant to subsections 110(1) and (5) of the Income Tax Act. ... The proceeds of disposition received by Appellant was $112,000 which was allocated as follows: $ 10,838.23 Land $101,161.77 Building 7. ...

That amount was founded on the following assumptions of fact: — That the Appellant was at all times material director and sole shareholder of Cawsey Enterprises Ltd (Cawsey); — That the Appellant was at all times material the spouse of one Ronald Waddell; — That Cawsey paid in 1976 pursuant to the direction of, or with the concurrence of, the Appellant, to Ronald Waddell the amount of $48,000,000.00; — That the payment of the said $48,000.00 constituted a benefit that the Appellant desired to have conferred on Ronald Waddell; — That the said payment if made to the Appellant would have been included in computing the Appellant’s income for the 1976 taxation year. ... Therefore, the taxation sought by the Minister can only be upheld if the final phrase in subsection 56(2) of the Act — “to the extent that it would be if the payment or transfer (of property) had been made to him” — can be applied directly to Mrs Waddell. ... I would refer to a recent decision of this Board in Peter Caspari v MNR, [1983] CTC 2001; 83 DTC 45, in which there is the following comment at 2002 [46]: Subsection 56(2) of the Income Tax Act cannot be relied upon to redeem the assessment. ...

For the respondent: —Atlas advanced monies on behalf of the appellant by the year ended November 30, 1976 in the following amounts: January 19,1976 $ 3,288.60 April 8,1976 6,577.20 August 20,1976 55,906.20 $65,772.00 —The letter dated January 11, 1977 and the promissory note dated November 2, 1977 did not constitute a “bona fide arrangement” and neither were such arrangements “made at the time the loan was made”; —The letter dated January 11, 1977 and the promissory note dated November 2, 1977 did not constitute “repayment thereof within a reasonable time”. ... The letter and the note read as follows: January 11, 1977 Willetts Macmahon & Company 1901 Toronto Dominion Tower Edmonton Centre Edmonton, Alberta T5J 2Z1 Dear Sirs: This letter is to confirm that Atlas Electrical Supply Ltd has advanced funds to me for the purpose of purchasing a dwelling for my own occupation. ... Yours very truly, PR:mtp P Reekie FOR VALUE RECEIVED Peter Reekie promises to pay to Atlas Electrical Supply Ltd at Edmonton, Alberta, the sum of $65,000, in equal annual installments of $2,600 each, commencing on November 30, 1978, to and including November 30, 2002, the said amount to bear no interest, and, notwithstanding the payment schedule aforesaid, the sum of $65,000 or so much thereof as remains unpaid from time to time to be immediately payable upon demand of Atlas Electrical Supply Ltd. ...