Search - connection

He continued by referring to subsections 28(1) and 248(1) as follows: 28. (1) For the purpose of computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year from a farming or fishing business, the income from the business for that year may, if the taxpayer so elects, be computed in accordance with a method, in this section referred to as the “cash” method, whereby the income therefrom for that year shall be deemed to be an amount equal to the aggregate of (a) and to paraphrase that, that is trading receipts as you know, and (b) such amount, if any, as may be specified by the taxpayer in respect of the business in his return of income under this part for the year, not exceeding the fair market value at the end of the year of livestock (leaving out a few words) owned by him at that time in connection with the business. 248. (1) “Cost amount” to a taxpayer of any property at any time means, except as expressly otherwise provided in this Act (c) where the property was property described in an inventory of the taxpayer, its value at that time as determined for the purpose of computing his income. ...

I recognize that the subject matter of the transaction is raw land and that there is some connection between the appellant’s ordinary occupation and the transaction in question. ...

I am not satisfied that the expenditures in connection with the home office were laid out for the purpose of gaining or producing income from the Appellant’s business. ...

In assessing the appellant for his taxation years 1976, 1977 and 1978 the respondent proceeded on the basis of the following facts, inter alia: (a) by an agreement signed on December 15, 1975, the appellant joined the partners in the partnership of Arsenault, Garneau, Villeneuve & Associés (hereinafter referred to as “the partnership”) to practise his profession of engineer and consulting engineer; (b) by an agreement having the same date of December 15, 1975, concluded between the appellant and the other partners on hand, and the company Arsenault, Garneau, Villeneuve et Associés Ltée (hereinafter referred to as “the company”) on the other, the partnership retained the services of the company “in connection with contracts which have been or shall be obtained by the partnership for engineering work”; (c) on December 15, 1975, the appellant purchased 350 shares in the company for $56,794.00, and by agreement on the same date the appellant and the other members of the partnership stated that they controlled and held between them all the issued shares in the capital stock of the company, distributed as follows: Pierre Arsenault 350 Gilles Garneau 350 Claude Villeneuve 350 Peter Coombes 150 H Albert Pageau 350 Hubert Pilon 150 Emilien Roy 150 Jean-Luc Durocher 150 Michel Moreau 150 Réal d’Anjou 150 2,300 (d) clause 5 of the agreement of December 15, 1975, mentioned in the foregoing paragraph, provides inter alia that if a party ceases to be a member of the partnership for any reason, “the shares of the company held or to be held by such party shall be offered for sale in accordance with the provisions hereof, and the other parties shall either buy them or cause them to be bought by the company”; (e) clause 6 of the said agreement provides that the price per share shall be the book value of the share, and that “the shares offered for sale may be redeemed by the company if the board of directors so decides”; (f) on August 31, 1976, the appellant ceased to be a member of the partnership, and on December 20, 1976 the board of directors authorized redemption by the company of the 350 shares held by the appellant in the company; (g) the redemption of the said shares by the company took place before March 31, 1977 for the sum of $77,010.36, $12,835.36 of which was paid to the appellant in 1977 and the balance was payable in five equal consecutive annual instalments, beginning one year after the first payment; (h) before the redemption mentioned in the foregoing paragraph, the PAID- UP CAPITAL of the company pursuant to s 89(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, SC 1970-71-72, c 63 (hereinafter referred to as the ITA), and its PAID-UP CAPITAL LIMIT pursuant to s 89(1)(e) of the ITA, amounted to $166,903.00, while the PAID-UP CAPITAL of the shares purchased was $25,398.28: (166,903 x 350): 2,300 At the hearing, counsel for the appellant did not challenge the transaction, he merely sought to interpret it so that subsection 84(3) of the Act did not apply. ...

Excavation operations carried on in connection with that work made future use of the land on which the fruit trees remained impractical because of access problems and, in fact, the appellant’s evidence was that later use of the lands as an orchard was not attempted. ...

An article to which the Court was referred by Louis Payette, advocate, in 40 Revue du Barreau (1980) p 337 is of considerable interest in this connection. ...

Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the appellant’s activities in connection with haymaking and the spreading of fertilizer, particularly in the conditions under which they were carried on, could not offer him any reasonable expectation of making a profit. ...

I think that word “subdivided” can be used quite specifically in connection with the context of the land management practices which were going on in those years of acquisition of the relevant properties. ...

Subsequently the apellant signed documentation which made him liable to the Federal Business Development Bank on a chattel mortgage given in connection with the acquisition of office furnishings and, as well, liable to the lessor of the office premises. ...

Minister of National Revenue, [1982] CTC 2632, 82 DTC 1641 D E Taylor:—This is an appeal heard in Calgary, Alberta, on March 10, 1982 in connection with income tax assessments for the years 1977 and 1978. ...