Search - connection

It should be noted that the Minister does not represent France and has no connection to this matter other than as the Canadian competent authority for obtaining the information and documents required by France under the Convention. [74]   France clearly has a genuine and valid interest in opposing Blue Bridge’s applications because the declaratory order sought would contravene a decision of a French court having jurisdiction in the matter. [75]   It is not for Blue Bridge to judge the appropriateness of France’s legislative choices in the arena of taxation or to deprive its tax authorities of the information it could use to perform its auditing functions. ... The requests made by France show the connections between the French residents and the Trusts at issue in this judgment. The Minister has no obligation whatsoever to verify the information supplied by France. [114]   Having studied the requests from the French authorities in connection with the French residents under investigation, the Minister assessed the foreseeable relevance of the required information, pursuant to Article 26(1) of the Convention. ...

In this connection I also note the Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision holding judicial review of procedural fairness issues is conducted on the correctness standard: see Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v. ... I find nothing unreasonable in the identification and weighing of the evidence by the Minister’s Delegate in this connection; it comports with constraining jurisprudence and was open on the record. [56] Second, the Applicant submits the Minister’s Delegate erred in their assessment of her medical condition. ... There should be and are guidelines to be factored into decisions in this connection. ...

Beyond that, the sections of the legislation are as follows: Taxes in Respect of Registered Plans 207.01 advantage, in relation to a registered plan, means (the “TFSA Advantage”) (a) any benefit, loan or indebtedness that is conditional in any way on the existence of the registered plan, other than [enumerated exceptions in (i)-(v)]; (b) a benefit that is an increase in the total fair market value of the property held in connection with the registered plan if it is reasonable to consider, having regard to all the circumstances, that the increase is attributable, directly or indirectly, to (i) a transaction or event or a series of transactions or events that (A) would not have occurred in a normal commercial or investment context in which parties deal with each other at arm’s length and act prudently, knowledgeably and willingly, and (B) had as one of its main purposes to enable a person or a partnership to benefit from the exemption from tax under Part I of any amount in respect of the registered plan, (ii) a payment received as, on account or in lieu of, or in satisfaction of, a payment (A) for services provided by a person who is, or who does not deal at arm’s length with, the controlling individual of the registered plan, or (B) of interest, of a dividend, of rent, of a royalty or of any other return on investment, or of proceeds of disposition, in respect of property (other than property held in connection with the registered plan) held by a person who is, or who does not deal at arm’s length with, the controlling individual of the registered plan, (iii) a swap transaction, or (iv) specified non-qualified investment income that has not been paid from the registered plan to its controlling individual within 90 days of receipt by the controlling individual of a notice issued by the Minister under subsection 207.06(4); (c) a benefit that is income (determined without reference to paragraph 82(1)(b)), or a capital gain, that is reasonably attributable, directly or indirectly, to (i) a prohibited investment in respect of the registered plan or any other registered plan of the controlling individual, (ii) in the case of a registered plan that is not a TFSA, an amount received by the controlling individual of the registered plan, or by a person who does not deal at arm’s length with the controlling individual (if it is reasonable to consider, having regard to all the circumstances, that the amount was paid in relation to, or would not have been paid but for, property held in connection with the registered plan) and the amount was paid as, on account or in lieu of, or in satisfaction of, a payment (A) for services provided by a person who is, or who does not deal at arm’s length with, the controlling individual of the registered plan, or (B) of interest, of a dividend, of rent, of a royalty or of any other return on investment, or of proceeds of disposition, or (iii) a deliberate over-contribution; (d) a registered plan strip in respect of the registered plan; and (e) a prescribed benefit.  ... Liability for tax (3) Each controlling individual of a registered plan in connection with which a tax is imposed under subsection (1) is jointly and severally, or solidarily, liable to pay the tax except that, if the advantage is extended by the issuer, carrier or promoter of the registered plan or by a person with whom the issuer, carrier or promoter is not dealing at arm’s length, the issuer, carrier or promoter, and not the controlling individual, is liable to pay the tax. ... (c) Purpose [49] The Appellant’s purposive arguments centre on the purpose of the TFSA Charge, and, in connection to it, its effect. ...

In connection with its surveys the appellant acquired from other companies the results of the velocity surveys made by them. ... And in this connection my remarks concerning the application and construction of subsection (5) apply as they did previously. ... In this connection Mr. McLellan filed 12 charts as Exhibits 81 to 92. ...

The statement of his evidence in chief, duly filed and served pursuant to Rule 482, stated the following conclusions: (a) A Colorado court, presented with this case, would apply Colorado substantive law in addressing the legal issues raised in this case; (b) An Indiana court, presented with this case, would apply Colorado substantive law in addressing the legal issues raised in this case; (c) Under Colorado law, Associates Acceptance Company Limited (“Associates”) was the “insured” party under Group Policy No. 67-205 (including all addendums and amendments) and under Group Policy No. 67-269 (including all addendums and amendments) issued by The Capitol Life Insurance Company (“Capitol”) to Associates; (d) Under Colorado law, the borrowers of Associates had no rights or claims against Capitol arising out of or under these Group Policies; and (e) Under Colorado law, no agency relationship existed between Capitol and Associates with respect to these Group Policies or in connection with any transactions relating to these Policies. ...

Frappier's claim is made under paragraph 8(1)(f) of the Income Tax Act, which reads: In computing a taxpayer's income for a taxation year from an office or employment, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as are wholly applicable to that source or such part of the following amounts as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto: (f) — where the taxpayer was employed in the year in connection with the selling of property or negotiating of contracts for the taxpayer's employer, and (i) under the contract of employment was required to pay the taxpayer's own expenses, (ii) was ordinarily required to carry on the duties of the employment away from the employer's place of business, (iii) was remunerated in whole or part by commissions or other similar amounts fixed by reference to the volume of the sales made or the contracts negotiated, and (iv) was not in receipt of an allowance for travel expenses in respect of the taxation year that was, by virtue of subparagraph 6(1)(b)(v), not included in computing the taxpayer's income, amounts expended by the taxpayer in the year for the purpose of earning the income from the employment (not exceeding the commissions or other similar amounts referred to in subparagraph (iii) and received by the taxpayer in the year) to the extent that such amounts were not (v) outlays, losses or replacements of capital or payments on account of capital, except as described in paragraph (j), (vi) outlays or expenses that would, by virtue of paragraph 18(1)(l), not be deductible in computing the taxpayer's income for the year if the employment were a business carried on by the taxpayer, or (vii) amounts the payment of which reduced the amount that would otherwise be included in computing the taxpayer's income for the year because of paragraph 6(1)(e). 4 Although the considerations that underlie the determination that must be made here are the same whether her income is from a business (section 9) or from employment (section 8) it was agreed that the case should proceed on the basis that she was employed by a brokerage firm and that it was therefore unnecessary to consider whether her income was from a business. ...

Under the terms of the licence agreement, the partnership was obligated (i) to commence operation of the hotel not later than thirty days following completion of the buildings; and (ii) to conform to the standards of quality and design for all furniture, furnishings, supplies and equipment used in connection with such business as approved by Orangeroof. ...

The fees comprising the partnership loss were paid for services rendered in connection with steps taken merely to move the project forward, not with the operation of the facility. [14]            Counsel points out that article 3.13 deals with the obligations of partners to contribute "the cash required to finance the operation of the Windsor Multi-Use Facility to the extent that it is not available out of revenues... ...

He said of subsection 116(1) that the section has application to “the directness of the connection to the practice of law in the broader business sense”: supra at 270. ...

  [10]            Justice Boyle found as a fact that the break fee was paid pursuant to an agreement negotiated by Morguard in connection with its potential acquisition of Acanthus, that Morguard pursued the acquisition in accordance with its established business strategy and in the ordinary course of its normal business operations, and that the receipt of the break fee was a normal and expected incident of its business activities. ...