Search - 辐射监测仪 校准

However, with regard to determining the terms of the contract he said at 2057: I believe that where it is expressly or impliedly alleged in cases of the kind under appeal that a taxpayer having a relationship to a company similar to that which existed between the appellant and Coulter Copper & Brass Ltd. was acting as its agent in negotiating a verbal contract of employment with him, convincing confirmatory proof of some kind should be forthcoming to establish the terms of the contract relied on in making deductions in the computation of income. ...

If I set aside Route A which was an indirect acquisition of Omnibus shares by the Collyer Family Company (324) and not involved in this appeal, the Appellant's cost of his direct and indirect ownership of Omnibus shares and warrants may be summarized as follows: Omnibus Shares and Warrants Cost to Appellant Route B 4.4% of 0089 which held 8.06% of the Omnibus shares on May 11, 1987 $ 610 10,687 Route C 4.17% of 606 which then held 10% of the Omnibus shares 25,000 Route D 25,000 Omnibus shares plus 25,000 Omnibus warrants 100,000 Route E 3,333 Omnibus shares 15,000 Route F 24,870 Omnibus shares plus 9,257 warrants upon winding-up of 606 (25,000) 96,373 Totals 53,203 Omnibus shares plus 34,527 Omnibus warrants plus 4.4% of 0089 $222,670 It is the amount of $222,670 which the Appellant seeks to deduct in 1987 as a business loss. ...

Chairman. ’ No formal proof of a judgment of the Board was made but whether or not a judgment was in fact rendered is in my view not material. ...

Lawson & Company, the financial year of which ended on May 81, 1955. ...

In assessing the Appellant for his 1956, 1957 and 1958 taxation years he made the following assumptions as to fact: (a) that in 1952 the Appellant purchased the Daigle Property with the view to trading in, dealing in or otherwise turning to account; (b) that in 1953 the Appellant purchased the Cadieux Property with the view to trading in, dealing in or otherwise turning to account; (¢) that a portion of the said lands were expropriated by the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission’) and the Appellant realized a profit of 29,447.00 in his 1958 taxation year; (d) that in 1956 the Appellant sold the Cadieux Property realizing a profit thereon of $30,500.00; (e) that the profit arising from the expropriation by the Commission and the profit arising from the sale of the Cadieux Property constituted part of the Appellant’s income for the relevant years since they were profits from a business or adventures in the nature of trade.’’ ...

I rejected the contention thus put forward and held, as set out in the headnote of the case, as follows: “ Held: That it is not for the Court or anyone else to prescribe what the intensity of the examination of a taxpayer’s return in any given case should be. ...

In the re-assessments, all dated September 13, 1954, the Minister added to the declared income of the respondent the following amounts: 1949 $ 1,500 1951 (reduced by the Minister’s Notification from $10,250) 10,000 1952 860 1953 1,500 The re-assessments indicated that the amounts so added were in relation to net gains from gambling activities. ...

When the former tenants vacated, substantial repairs were made to the building and it appears to have been rented from about January 1, 1953, at $1,500 per month, to Locke Gray & Co., a firm with which Mr. ...

Section 59 provided for an appeal to the Income Tax Appeal Board to have the assessment to which objection had been taken vacated or varied and prescribed the time within which such appeal might be instituted, as follows: ‘ ‘59. (1) Where a taxpayer has served notice of objection to an assessment under section 58, he may appeal to the Income Tax Appeal Board constituted by Division I to have the assessment vacated or varied after either (a) the Minister has confirmed the assessment or re-assessed, or (b) 180 days have elapsed after service of the notice of objection and the Minister has not notified the taxpayer that he has vacated or confirmed the assessment or re-assessed; but no appeal under this section may be instituted after the expiration of 90 days from the day notice has been mailed to the taxpayer under section 58 that the Minister has confirmed the assessment or re-assessed. (2) Service of a notice of appeal under this section shall be served and all other matters in connection with an appeal under this section shall be regulated by Division I.” ...

Davie & Sons v. M.N.R., [1954] Ex. C.R. 280; [1954] C.T.C. 124, servent à me confirmer dans l’opinion que j’adopte. ...