Search - considered

The nature of its activities is such that the company cannot be considered to exist as an active commercial business but merely as one holding investments. ...

Being so, subsection 16(1) of the Act should be considered. Said section reads as follows: 16. (1) A payment or transfer of property made pursuant to the direction of, or with the concurrence of, a taxpayer to some other person for the benefit of the taxpayer,... shall be included in computing the taxpayer’s income to the extent that it would be if the payment or transfer had been made to him.” ...

Counsel on behalf of the Minister alleges that by no stretch of the imagination can a purchase for $1,500 of the shares of this company along with a “worthless” note for $80,000 odd be considered an investment. ...

She did not get any salary from her own company for the said years but received $5,600 from it as salary in 1973 and $12,000 in 1974. 5 She also owns a duplex that she acquired in 1959, but the said asset was not transferred to the company because she considered that this property was producing rental, and not business, income and therefore was a well-secured personal investment. 6 She explained that the company's business was the lending of money at high interest rates and for short periods of time. ...

This activity of the appellant is independent of the qualifications and skills required of him as Assistant Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at Guelph University and, in my view, he has acted, on all the projects listed on page 2 of Exhibit A-1, as an independent agent or consultant, and should be considered as operating a business within the meaning of paragraph 139(1)(e) of the old Income Tax Act, while performing these services in the cities of New York, Ottawa, Brooklyn, Plattsburgh, Montreal or Hamilton. ...

This of course cannot be considered as a long- term investment. 16 I conclude therefore that the gain realized by the appellant company from the disposition of Crystal Manor is not a non-taxable capital gain from a long-term investment but arises as the result of a venture in the nature of trade, and that it was properly assessed by the Minister as income. 17 The appeal is therefore dismissed. ...

In no way can his decision be considered as a judgment and, consequently, in the case at bar the Minister exercised an administrative and not a judicial function. ...

However, I feel certain that, in arriving at the $7.50 a day figure for Canadian truck drivers, the Department of National Revenue considered the overall picture in Canada and arrived at this figure. ...

The appellant produced as exhibit A-1 financial statements concerning the 1972, 1973 and 1974 taxation years in which the $50,000 appeared as an asset: “Investment loan Secor Industries—$50,000’’. 3.5 The appellant was the president of the two companies. 3.6 During the taxation years in question the appellant borrowed from Secor Industries Limited and reimbursed the following monies: Year Borrowed Repaid Repaid Amount Owing 1970 $11,113.42 $ 3,000.00 $ 8,113.42 1971 $11,663.42 $11,113.42 $ 550.00 These figures were admitted by the appellant. 3.7 During the taxation years in question, Anndean Holdings Ltd borrowed from Secor Industries Limited and reimbursed the following monies: Year Borrowed Repaid Repaid Amount Owing 1970 $22,215.45 $ 8,100.00 $14,215.45 1971 $32,215.45 $22,215.45 $10,000.00 As the appellant owns 50% of the common shares of the company, the respondent included in his income $7,057.72 in the 1971 taxation year and $5,000 in the 1972 taxation year. 3.8 According to Mr Noël Frenette, witness for the respondent, those figures had not been disputed by the appellant before. 3.9 According to the appellant, however, the amounts not paid by Anndean Holdings Ltd must in fact be considered as reimbursements made by Secor Enterprises Limited to Anndean Holdings Ltd on the loan of $50,000 made by Anndean Holdings Ltd (see paragraph 3.4). 4. ...

During the year under appeal, the appellant claimed total payments of $2,439 and, in filing his income tax return, detailed the payments as follows: STATEMENT OF ALIMONY PAID IN 1974 Paid to Florence Penner, Melville, Sask—For the Months of Jan, Feb, Mar, Apl, May, June, July and Aug 1974 8 x 100 $800 4 x 50 for months Sept, Oct, Nov, and Dec 1974 200 Paid directly to daughter Wendy, attending school in Edmonton, Alta for months of Jan, Feb, Mar, Apl, May, June and July 1974— 7 x 60 420 Feb 24, 1974 190 April 11, 1974 229 May 27, 1974 250 5 x 7/0 in Aug, Sept, Oct, Nov and Dec 1974 350 TOTAL ALIMONY PAID IN 1974 $2.439 Daughter Wendy residing at 10405, 108 Ave, Edmonton The amounts deleted by the Minister were in connection with payments made to or on behalf of Wendy, and consisted of: 7 x $20 per month $140 February 24, 1974 190 April 11, 1974 229 May 27, 1974 250 5 x $30 per month 150 $959 Contentions The position of the appellant as outlined in the Notice of Appeal was: Mr Penner considered it, his responsibility to provide maintenance and support for his daughters, Virginia and Wendy and therefore it was the intention of the parties for the agreement to mean more than what it strictly Says, the meaning being that Mr Penner would make his own arrangements as to the maintenance and support directly with his daughters without interference with his wife and that he would take into consideration his responsibility for the maintenance and support. ...