Principal Issues: A) Whether meals consumed by a self-employed individual when usually gone for a full day would be deductible in computing his business income.
B) Whether the cost of specialized / personalized clothing would be deductible as a business expense.
Position: A) Question of fact but generally no;
B) No
Reasons: A) The costs incurred in respect of everyday meals are likely not expenses incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income from the business.
B) The cost of specialized clothing such as steel-toed boots or shirts with the company name and/or personal name on them is a personal or living expense.
Principal Issues:
Whether a spin-off by a non-resident corporation qualifies as an "eligible distribution" within the meaning of subsection 86.1(2) of the Act.
Position:
No.
Reasons:
The distribution of shares does not satisfy the requirements of subsection 86.1(2) of the Act.
Principal Issues: i) Whether board and lodging allowed as medical expenses during the period of treatment. ii) Whether travel costs include visit home.
Position: i) No ii) No
Reasons: i) Costs for meals and accommodations may qualify as medical expenses en-route to obtain medical services. These costs are not travel expenses during the period the individual is receiving treatment. ii) Visits home are not to obtain medical services.
2009-030567
XXXXXXXXXX Rob Ferrari
(613) 957-2138
January 28, 2009
Principal Issues: Taxability/reasonableness of transportation allowances and motor vehicle allowances received by employees possibly working at a remote work location.
operation of breaking bulk packages into smaller lots for repackaging and sale was not “processing”
166
Principales Questions: (1) Est-ce que les activités exercées par le contribuable dans le cadre d'une entreprise de fractionnement et d'emballage de XXXXXXXXXX peuvent donner droit à la déduction de l'article 125.1 de la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu?
(2) Est-ce que les immobilisations acquises par le contribuable dans le cadre de l'exploitation de son entreprise peuvent faire l'objet d'un classement à la catégorie 29?
Position Adoptée: Non.
Raisons: Dans la situation donnée, même si les activités de transformation du contribuable ont eu pour effet de rendre plus commercialisable les produits XXXXXXXXXX , nous ne croyons pas qu'il y ait eu un changement dans la forme, l'apparence ou les autres caractéristiques du produit.
Principal Issues: 1. Will CRA provide specific examples of what it considers to be the "same or connected project" for purposes of subparagraph 9(b) of Article V of the Canada-US Treaty (the "Treaty")? 2. Would CRA define "third parties" for purposes of subparagraph 9(b) of Article V of the Treaty? Are related parties considered third parties? What constitutes an "enterprise" for purposes of subparagraph 9(b) of Article V of the Treaty?
s. 150(1) s. 152(6) s. 161(1) and (7) s. 162(1) and (11)
Principal Issues: 1. Whether the effective interest date is the same for the non-capital loss carryforward and the net capital carryforward.
2. Whether the late filing penalty would be reduced by the application of a future tax consequence such as a loss carryback.
Position: !. Not necessarily.
2. No.
Reasons: 1. S. 161(7) contains a number of events and each event has different start date for computing interest.
The late filing penalty is calculated on tax payable first, before a future tax consequence is considered.
