Bifalgorithm post · Une société construit une maison de luxe pour son actionnaire · Case tabs

Benefit Valuation

Benefit Valuation (Une société construit une maison de luxe pour son actionnaire · Case tabs) — "The respondent stated that the appellant, his wife Beatrice, a…

Ideas in this flowchart

The respondent's account of the corporate residence and the benefit received by the appellant
The appellant, his wife Beatrice, and their three children owned all issued voting shares of Andrich Developments Limited
The appellant and Beatrice held 1,400 shares each, while each child held 400 shares
The corporation constructed a luxury single-family residence for the appellant and his wife
The residence was built on the corporation's 16-acre lot at a cost of $395,549.34
A first mortgage of $79,413.55 left the corporation with equity of $316,135.79
During 1979, the corporation paid $7,566 in mortgage interest, $420 in municipal taxes, and $813 in insurance premiums
The respondent estimated the benefit conferred on the appellant during 1979 at $6,526
An investor could expect a nine per cent return on capital from an effectively risk-free investment in 1977
The corporation did not build the residence to produce or gain income from a business or property

Bifalgorithm

Feed/

Benefit Valuation

No cover

Channel

Une société construit une maison de luxe pour son actionnaire

1 page

USR292600b83e2a

Ebook1w

"The respondent stated that the appellant, his wife Beatrice, and their three children owned all of the issued voting shares of Andrich Developments Limited, with the appellant and his wife holding 1,400 shares each and the children holding 400 shares each. The corporation constructed a luxury single-family residence on a 16-acre lot owned by it, at a cost of $395,549.34, for the benefit of the appellant and his wife. The residence was charged with a first mortgage of $79,413.55, leaving the corporation's equity at $316,135.79. During the 1979 taxation year, the corporation paid mortgage interest of $7,566, municipal taxes of $420, and insurance premiums of $813 in respect of the residence. The respondent alleged that a reasonable estimate of the benefit conferred on the appellant during 1979 was $6,526, that an investor could expect a nine per cent return on capital from an effectively risk-free investment in 1977, and that the corporation did not build the residence for the purpose of producing or gaining income from a business or property."

Flowchart preview

👍

0 comments0 shares