Search - connection

The Act defines “commercial activity” and an “exempt supply” as follows:   "commercial activity" of a person means   …   (c) the making of a supply (other than an exempt supply) by the person of real property of the person, including anything done by the person in the course of or in connection with the making of the supply;   "exempt supply" means a supply included in Schedule V;   [9]      The Appellant’s position is that the sale was an exempt supply as he sold a used residential property. ...

., as amended (the " Act ") and dated March 22, 2004, by which the Minister of National Revenue ("the Minister") added to the Appellant's income, for the 1999 taxation year, an amount of $75,000 as income from a business in connection with the sale of a fish farm ...

(admitted)   (d)     In computing the Appellant's income for the 2003 and 2004 taxation years, the Minister disallowed rental expenses of $4,787 and $35,218, respectively, in connection with the building on Troy Street in Montréal. ...

Gebhart's RRSP funds to CIBC, Mankota, and he thought that there must be some connection between the two in view of the CIBC T-4s for RRSPs. ...

Accordingly, the onus is on the Respondent to establish this connection; this has not been done. ...

[6]      Under subparagraph 8(1)(f)(v) deductions for capital outlays by employees are explicitly denied: 8. (1) Deductions allowed 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) Sales expenses 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... to the extent that those amounts were not (v) outlays, losses or replacements of capital or payments on account of capital, except as described in paragraph (j) [7]      Computer equipment prior to March 22, 2004 was included in Class 10 with a maximum permissible capital cost deduction of 30% per year, implying an amortization period 3.3 years. ...

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Bowman, C.J. [1]      The appellant appeals to this Court from decisions by the Minister of National Revenue that Mark Brideau was employed by Freeway Technologies Inc. in insurable and pensionable employment during the period from January 5, 2004 to June 4, 2004. [2]      The assumptions upon which the Minister's determinations were based are the following: (a)        the Appellant is a computer network system integration and consulting business, providing sales and services of computer networks, computer parts and computer support; (b)        the Appellant operated year round; (c)        during the period under appeal the Worker was hired by the Appellant as its director of sales and services and his duties included generating new business and providing technical support for the Appellant's new and existing clients; (d)        during the period under appeal the Appellant provided the Worker with the materials needed to do the work, internet connection, e-mail account, fax machine, printer and access to its repair shop and the Appellant was not compensated for their use; (e)        during the period under appeal the Worker used his lap top computer, cellular telephone and vehicle and he was not compensated for their use; (f)         during the period under appeal the Appellant was liable for non-payment of invoices issued to its clients and this did not impact on the wages paid to the Worker; (g)        during the period under appeal the Appellant guaranteed the work performed for its clients by the Worker; (h)        during the period under appeal the Worker was paid weekly based on the following: Annual Salary                             $40,000 Gross Weekly Salary                  $769.23 Net Weekly Salary                     $553.77 (i)         during the period under appeal the Worker performed services for the Appellant for 22 calendar weeks; (j)         the Worker received a Record of Employment from the Appellant which reported insurable hours of 880 and insurable earnings of $16,923.06 ($769.23 per week x 22 weeks); (k)        after the period under appeal, the Worker operated a proprietorship under the name e-Pro Computer Services and he provided contract services to the Appellant; (l)         after the period under appeal the Worker invoiced the Appellant for his services based on 33% of the amount billed by the Appellant to its client plus GST; and (m)       after the period under appeal the Worker's pay dates and amounts varied. [3]       During the period in question, Mark Brideau was engaged [1] by the appellant. [4]       The usual criteria for determining whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor are found in the four in one test enunciated by the Federal Court of Appeal in Wiebe Door Services Ltd. v. ...

The relevant part of that definition reads as follows: "Personal or living expenses includes the expenses of property maintained by any person for the use or benefit of the taxpayer or any person connected with the taxpayer by a blood relationship, marriage or common-law partnership or adoption, and not maintained in connection with a business carried on for profit, or with a reasonable expectation of profit. ...

In May 1996, Diane Lavallé notified him that she would be visiting his business to conduct an audit in connection with the payment of the Québec Sales Tax (QST) and the Goods and Services Tax (GST) ...

The document indicated that $5,000.00 of the price was to be financed. [21]     The agent for the Appellant also filed a Power Smart Residential Loan dated December 13, 2004 (Exhibit A-8) which indicated that in December 2004 Manitoba Hydro lent Sharif and Mumtaz Arain the sum of $5,000.00 in connection with the installation of the windows on the Property. [22]     The agent for the Appellant argued that the Appellant should be recognized as giving consideration to him in the amount of $8,200.00 in March 1999 because in 2004 she paid for new windows on the Property. [23]     I reject this evidence because the windows were not paid for until 2004, i.e. five years after the transfer of the interest in the Property by Mohammed to the Appellant. [24]     Furthermore, I also note that the agent for the Appellant disposed of his interest in the Property in March 1999 and therefore Mohammed did not benefit personally from any payments made by the Appellant in 2004 to install windows on the Property. [25]     The appeal is dismissed without costs. ...