Search - 2002年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

  [4]      In the summer of 2002, the Appellant was looking for someone to work at the centre and get it operational. ... The first was signed on September 1, 2002, and the second, November 14, 2002. ...   [23]     However, for the period of July 26 to August 31, 2002, I cannot conclude that there was a company made up of Ms. ...

He did not claim the costs incurred for meals.               It was also the Appellant’s evidence that, in 2002, he drove to St. ... f)           Telephone and Utilities – 2002             Cell phone – 2003             The Appellant had no documentation to support the amounts that were disallowed.   ...   [14]          The appeal for the 2002 taxation year is allowed. The appeals for the 2003 and 2004 taxation years are dismissed.              ...

Ammendolia”)   [2]      Between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2003 the Appellant was also employed concurrently by TV Ontario ...   [11]     The employment contracts signed by the Appellant with TV Ontario state that the Appellant was entitled to the following annual allowance with receipts:             2001 – 2002 – (The period from August 1, 2001 to July 31, 2002)           Professional Expenses (Annual allowances with submissions of proper receipts)          -        wardrobe allowance of up to $2,500.00          -        hair/make-up as required.             ... Issue   [14]     The issue is whether the Appellant is entitled to deduct any expenses in addition to the expenses allowed by the Minister in determining her income for the 2002 and 2003 taxation years.   ...

McIntyre     JUDGMENT             The appeals from the reassessments made under the Income Tax Act for the 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxation years and under Part IX of the Excise Tax Act for the period from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2002 are allowed, without costs, and the matters are referred back to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment on the basis of the attached Reasons for Judgment.   ... (c)               Did the Minister properly assess the Appellant for unreported GST/HST in the amount of $26,573.20 for the period from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2002?   ... He testified that he used these funds to pay his personal living expenses in 2001 and 2002. ...

By 2002, according to its financial statements for that year, [9] it had total liabilities of about $1.3 million against assets of about $918,000. ... In Tibilla, the taxpayer bought and renovated a rental property in 2002. ... The taxpayer argued that the six-year period during which he was required to keep the supporting documents for the renovation expenses started running in 2002. ...

A.       FACTS [1]      During the 2002 and 2003 taxation years, the Appellant and her common law husband, Richard E. ... Nelson filed his 2002 and 2003 income tax returns and reported net income of $22,809.00 and $18,204.00 for the 2002 and 2003 taxation years respectively. [6]      Mr. ... (b)      Other Income                   2002                                                        $10,000.00                   2003                                                        $10,000.00 [13]     Mr. ...

  [6]               The objections raised by the appellant are in regard to:   (i)                 the Minister establishing the reassessment for the 2002 taxation year after the end of the normal reassessment period;   (ii)               the Minister applying a penalty regarding the additional income for each of the 2002, 2003 and 2004 taxation years;   (iii)             the additional income for the taxation years in question, the specific elements of which are:     (a)     Cash on hand on March 31, 2002   [7]               The appellant claimed that the Minister did not take into consideration that he had around $40,000 in cash on March 31, 2002. ...   [11]          The appellant's testimony showed that:   (i)                 on March 31, 2002, he had around $40,000 in cash that he kept at his residence. ...   [15]          In this case, the appellant convinced me that his cost of living was around $500 a month for 2002, 2003 and 2004. ...

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT   Porter, D.J.   [1]      The issue in this case is whether the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) has correctly determined that the Appellant was not engaged in insurable employment under the Employment Insurance Act (the “ EI Act ”) during the period of September 15 th, 2001 to December 14 th, 2002. ... (a)                 the Payor operated a business in the construction industry;  (agreed)   (b)                the share structure of the Payor was as follows:                               293594 Alberta Ltd.  100%    (agreed)   (c)                 James Bonner (hereinafter “the Shareholder”) was the major shareholder of 293594 Alberta Ltd.;    (agreed)   (d)                the Appellant is the son of the Shareholder; (agreed)   (e)                 the Appellant and the Payor were related to each other within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5 th Supp.) c.1, as amended (the “ Act ”);   (agreed)   (f)                  the Appellant was hired as a labourer/manager;   (disagreed)   (g)                 the Appellant’s duties included manual labour, operating equipment, picking up supplies, preparing bids, getting mail, calculating payroll, distributing paycheques and paying bills;  (agreed)   (h)                 the Shareholder was out of the country for a portion of the Period; (agreed)   (i)                   the Appellant earned a set wage of $15.00 per hour which was eventually increased to $20.00 per hour;  (agreed)   (j)                  the Payor determined the Appellant’s wage rate;  (disagreed)   (k)                the Payor did not pay the Appellant on a regular basis; (agreed with explanation)   (l)                   the Payor did not remunerate the Appellant in the same manner as the Payor’s other employees;  (disagreed)   (m)               the Payor provided the Appellant with company funds to distribute wages to other employees and pay company bills;  (agreed)   (n)                 the Payor issued the following cheques to the Appellant: (agreed)               Date                                                     Date             Issued                          Amount             Cashed                                       Nov 20, 2001              $1,084.30        Nov 23, 2001                                     Dec 10, 2001               $   861.40        Dec 11, 2001                                     Jan 2, 2002                  $   876.00        Jan 25, 2002                                     May 27, 2002              $1,000.00        Jun 6, 2002 (loan)                                     Jun 14, 2002                $1,049.65        Jun 20, 2002                                     Jul 2, 2002                   $1,082.82        Jul 4, 2002                                     Jul 12, 2002                 $   575.00        Jul 16, 2002                                     Jul 16, 2002                 $   523.08        Jul 16, 2002                                     Jul 26, 2002                 $1,044.69        Jul 26, 2002                                     Jul 31, 2002                 $1,044.69        Aug 2, 2002                                     Nov 14, 2002              $9,141.62        Nov 14, 2002 (included other workers’ pay)                                                 Jan 2, 2003                  $2,871.51        Jan 7, 2003      (included expenses)                               Jan 2, 2003                  $1,123.99        Jan 7, 2003      (expenses)     (o)                the Appellant also received advances;              (agreed with explanation)   (p)                the Payor also made a couple of direct transfers to the Appellant’s bank account;                                     (agreed with explanation)   (q)                the Appellant provided unpaid services to the Payor;             (disagreed)   (r)                  the Payor issued a Record of Employment to the Appellant on December 16, 2002 which contained the following information:   First day worked                      September 15, 2001 Last day worked                      December 14, 2002 Occupation                               Manager Total insurable hours                 2103 hours Total insurable hours                 $39,660   (agreed with explanation)   (s)                 the Appellant filed an Application for Benefits on February 24, 2003 which contained the following information:                           Job title                                    Manager                         First day worked                      October 15, 2001                         Last day worked                      December 14, 2002                         Normal earnings                       $20/hour                         Normal hours               40 hours/week, 5 days/week                           (agreed with explanation)   (t)                  the Payor issued T4s to the Appellant which contained the following income:   2001                        $  4,446 2002                        $15,920            (agreed)     (u)                 the Payor’s payroll records indicated the following:   Appellant’s first day of work     November 8, 2001 Appellant did not work             Jan, Feb, Mar,                                                             Apr, and Aug 2002   Total hours worked                              1290 hours             (agreed)   (v)        when the Appellant worked at the Payor’s job site, he normally worked from sunrise to sunset, 6 or 7 days a week;       (agreed)   (w)       the Appellant only worked part-time for the Payor in January, February, March, April and August 2002;  (agreed)   (x)        the Payor supervised the Appellant;     (disagreed)   (y)        the Payor provided the tools and equipment required including a truck, compaction equipment, survey, generators, welders, scaffolding, pumps, heaters and a loader;    (agreed)   (z)        the Appellant provided his own vehicle;   (agreed)   (aa)             the Payor reimbursed the Appellant for business expenses incurred;               (agreed)   (bb)            the Payor paid all operating expenses included meals and accommodations for its employees;  (agreed)   (cc)             the Appellant did not replace anyone when he was hired and he was not replaced when he left;  (agreed with explanation)   (dd)            the Appellant was employed under a contract of service by the Payor;  (agreed)   (ee)             the Minister considered all of the relevant facts that were made available to the Minister, including the remuneration paid, the terms and conditions, the duration and the nature and importance of the work performed, and   (ff)                the Minister was satisfied that it was reasonable to conclude that the Appellant and the Payor would not have entered into a substantially similar contract of employment if they had been dealing with each other at arm’s length.   ...   [31]     For those reasons the appeal is allowed, in part, the decision of the Minister is varied, on the basis that the employment of the Appellant by Hearn Construction between November 8, 2001 and December 8, 2001, and between May 1 st 2002 and December 14, 2002, was insurable employment under the EI Act.            ...

Signed this 23rd day of April 2003.   " Murray F. Cain" D.J.T.C.C.       ... DIAMOND, Appellant, and   THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, Respondent,   AND     Docket: 97-34(UI)   JOSEPH DIAMOND, Appellant, and   THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, Respondent,   AND   Docket: 97-263(UI) DAVID KEOUGH, Appellant, and   THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, Respondent.     ...   [13]     The Respondent appealed the judgment of this Court to the Federal Court of Appeal and on July 17, 2002, that Honourable Court set aside the judgment. ...

B.       ISSUES: [9]      The issues to be decided are: (a)       Whether the Appellant is entitled to deduct the expenses outlined in paragraph [7] above for the 2001 and 2002 taxation years. ... Automobile purchased for son Mathew                     2002         (See Exhibit A-4 ... Spent for driving school for Mathew                         2002         (See Exhibit A-6)                                                     $344.83 5.      ...