Search - 2002年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

The following amounts are involved:     Claimed Revised 2000 $6,521.29 $1,449.17 2001 3,659.36 813.19 2002 7,008.27 709.17   [4]      The appeal was heard in Kamloops, British Columbia on December 1, 2005. ... I have concluded that the following amounts should be allowed:   Taxation Year       2000 $1,101.06 2001 1,153.61 2002 835.73             3.       Bad Debts:   [9]      The following amounts were claimed by the Appellant as Bad Debts:   Bad Debts Claimed     Claimed Allowed       200l $ 3,975.00 0       2002  18,539.00 0   [10]     Bad Debts and Doubtful Debts are dealt with in paragraphs 20(1)(l) and 20(1)(p) of the Act. ...

  [1]               This appeal pertains to the 2002 and 2003 taxation years ... (denied)   (f)      The auditor therefore disallowed the amounts of $738 and $767 claimed by the appellant for the 2002 and 2003 taxation year, respectively. ... (denied)   (t)      The auditor estimated that the vehicles' personal-use percentage for the 2002 and 2003 taxation years was 20%. ...

In filing his Income Tax Return for the 2002 taxation year, Mr. Mills claimed a deduction for accounting fees in the amount of $133,215 by submitting 4 invoices detailed as follows:     Invoice Date   Description   Amount     Total   14 May 2002 6  - Monthly accounting fees (January to April 2002)- Preparation of 2001 tax return- GST   $20,000   $8,000 $1,960           $29,960     28 June 2002 7  - Monthly accounting fees (November 2001 to May 2002)- GST   $15,000   $1,050           $16,050     4 April 2003 8  - Planning, Research re: 20(1)(p)- GST   $52,500   $3,675         $56,175     20 April 2003 9  - Preparation of 2002 return for           Mr. Mills & spouse- Monthly accounting fees (June to December 2002)- GST   $14,000   $15,000   $2,030             $31,030     GRAND TOTAL:      $133,215                                                             6      Invoice of May 14, 2002, Exhibit A-5. 7      Invoice of June 28, 2002, Exhibit A-6. 8      Invoice of April 4, 2003, Exhibit A-7. 9      Invoice of April 20, 2003, Exhibit A-8.   13.       ... Mills for his 2002 taxation year, the Minister only allowed $37,450 of the $133,215 claimed, as follows:     Date Invoice   Description   Amount     Total   14 May 2002  - Monthly accounting fees (January to April 2002)- Preparation of 2001 tax return- GST   $20,000   0 $1,400           $21,400     28 June 2002  - Monthly accounting fees (November 2001 to May 2002)- GST   $15,000   $1,050         $16,050     4 April 2003  - Planning, Research re: 20(1)(p)- GST   0   0         0     20 April 2003  - Preparation of 2002 return for Mr. ...

FACTS:   [1]      The Appellant maintains that in the 2001 and 2002 taxation yeas she was both an employee and also a freelance instructor and field archaeologist. ...   [3]      The evidence before the Court established the following facts:   (a)       during the 2001 and 2002 years the Appellant was employed as a school principal by St. ... If the Appellant was an independent contractor in 2001 and 2002, was she entitled to deduct the expenses that she claimed?   ...

II.      Factual Background and Credibility Findings [3]               In July of 2006, the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) assessed the Appellant for the amount of $6,165,394.23 with respect to unremitted GST, interest and penalties owed by GMC for the reporting periods from March 1, 1999 to September 30, 2002. The particulars of the Assessment are set out in Appendix A to these reasons for judgment. [1] [4]              On October 24, 2002, the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) registered a certificate with the Federal Court under section 316 of the ETA with respect to the unpaid GST liability of GMC. ... Hogan DATE OF JUDGMENT: March 2, 2015   APPEARANCES:   For the Appellant: The Appellant himself Counsel for the Respondent: Craig Maw Roxanne Wong   COUNSEL OF RECORD: For the Appellant: Name:     Firm:   For the Respondent: William F. ...

  [5]              The Appellant was reassessed on October 7, 2010 (the "October 2010 Reassessments") for the 2002 and 2003 taxation years. ...   [6]              The 2002 and 2003 taxation years were reassessed beyond the normal reassessment period ...   [27]         For the foregoing reasons, the appeals from the reassessments made under the Act for the 2002 and 2003 taxation years are dismissed.     ...

They read: 5.          By CCTB notices dated December 13, 2004, the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") informed the Appellant that with respect to the 2001, 2002 and 2003 base years, more specifically for the period of September 2002 to December 2004, the Appellant was not the eligible individual for Brittany as the child was no longer in the Appellant's care and as a result, the Appellant had been overpaid CCTB benefits in the amount of $4,413.96. 6.          ... In so redetermining and confirming the Appellant's CCTB and GSTC for the 2001, 2002 and 2003 base years, the Minister assumed the same facts as follows: (a)         the months specified for the CCTB in respect of the 2001, 2002 and 2003 base years are as follows:             Base Year     Months Specified- CCTB 2001 September 2002 to June 2003 2002 July 2003 to June 2004 2003 July 2004 to December 2004 (b)         the months specified for the GSTC in respect of the 2001, 2002 and 2003 base years are as follows:             Base Year     Months Specified- GSTC 2001 October of 2002 January and April of 2003 2002 July and October of 2003 January and April of 2004 2003 July and October of 2004 (c)         Brittany, born January 10, 1989, is the Appellant's grand daughter; (d)         the Appellant was the person who primarily fulfilled the responsibility for the care and upbringing of Brittany until August 16, 2002; (e)         on August 17, 2002, Brittany began residing with Sheila and Trevor Jubenville (the "Jubenvilles"); (f)          the Jubenvilles are responsible for all decisions regarding Brittany including health and education; (g)         beginning August 17, 2002, the Jubenvilles primarily fulfilled the responsibility for the care and upbringing of Brittany; (h)         while residing with the Jubenvilles, 2002 Brittany would visit the Appellant on holidays; (i)          the Appellant received CCTB payments as follows and detailed in Schedule A, attached to and forming part of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal (hereinafter "Schedule A"); Amount Base Year $2,444.00 2001 $1,781.54 2002 $    595.75 2003 (j)          the Appellant was entitled to CCTB payments as follows and detailed in Schedule A: Amount Base Year $407.33 2001 Nil 2002 Nil 2003 (k)         the Appellant was in receipt of CCTB overpayments totalling $4,413.96 in respect of the 2001, 2002 and 2003 base years as follows and detailed in Schedule A: Amount Base Year $2,036.67 2001 $1,781.54 2002 $    595.75 2003 (l)          the Appellant received GSTC payments as follows and detailed in Schedule B, attached to and forming part of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal (hereinafter "Schedule B"); Amount Base Year $403.50 2001 $530.65 2002 $181.47 2003 (m)        the Appellant was entitled to GSTC payments as follows and detailed in Schedule B: Amount Base Year $243.75 2001 $314.65 2002 $ 69.47 2003 (n)         the Appellant was in receipt of GSTC overpayments totalling $487.75 as follows and detailed in Schedule B: Amount Base Year $159.75 2001 $216.00 2002 $112.00 2003 B.         ISSUES TO BE DECIDED 11.        The issues are: (a)         whether the Appellant is considered an eligible individual after August 31, 2002 pursuant to section 122.6 of the Act for the 2001, 2002 and 2003 base years; (b)         whether the Appellant was overpaid CCTB benefits in the amount of $4,413.96 in respect of the 2001, 2002 and 2003 base years; (c)         whether Brittany is a qualified dependant of the Appellant after August 31, 2002 pursuant to section 122.5 of the Act for the 2001, 2002 and 2003 base years; and (d)         whether the Appellant was overpaid GSTC benefits in the amount of $487.75 in respect of the 2001, 2002 and 2003 base years. ...

Warren became a director of Triventa in 2001. [25]          In January 2002, Ms. ... As a result, she resigned as a director of Triventa. [18] [26]          In the summer of 2002, Mr. ... By the summer of 2002, the loan was due and Triventa had not repaid it. ...

The last invoice that she apparently saw dated back to November 2002. ...   [9]      Ms. Vézina explained during her testimony that the work performed on the exterior of the house was entrusted to a contractor, who completed the work in February 2002. ...   [10]     As regards the invoices, Ms. Vézina brought others to the hearing, dated after November 2002. ...

  [22]          The Appellant produced similar corroborating documentary evidence for his 2002 taxation year. ...   [26]          Nadia Brenhouse testified that she loaned the Appellant, who is a close personal and family friend, a total of $15,000 during 2002. ...   [27]          The evidence also shows that the Appellant received a loan of $6,000 from Carlo Borrelli in 2002, which was erroneously treated by the CRA as a source of undeclared income ...