Search - connection

. / 1714862 Alberta Ltd – Production Number A00157; b) Reporting Memorandum from Tim Kirby (Felesky Flynn LLP) and Sean Zubrychyj (Felesky Flynn LLP) to Bob Hahn (H&H LLP) re: sale to Tecate Northern Trust dated July 31, 2017 – Production Number A00313; c) Reporting Memorandum from Tim Kirby (Felesky Flynn LLP) and Sean Zubrychyj (Felesky Flynn LLP) to Bob Hahn (H&H LLP) re: sale to Tecate Northern Trust dated July 31, 2017 – Production Number A00317; d) Reporting Memorandum from Tim Kirby (Felesky Flynn LLP) and Sean Zubrychyj (Felesky Flynn LLP) to Bob Hahn (H&H LLP) re: Repurchase of Shares of 1714862 and Fitter and Repayment of Promissory Note dated September 11, 2017 – Production Number A00320; e) Reporting Memorandum from Tim Kirby (Felesky Flynn LLP) and Sean Zubrychyj (Felesky Flynn LLP) to Margaret and Louis Stack and Hahn (H&H LLP) re: Repurchase of Shares of 1714862 and Fitter and Repayment of Promissory Note dated September 11, 2017 – Production Number A00323. [3] Essentially, these 5 documents constitute 3 documents because the two reporting memoranda are identical; they were produced repeatedly because each was sent twice by distinct covering email. [4] The Appellants sum up their opposition to disclosing anything but the redacted versions on the following basis: The Minister assumed that Margaret and Louis Stack, the Appellants, retained Felesky Flynn LLP as legal counsel in connection with the transactions at issue; The documents over which the Stacks have claimed solicitor-client privilege are, on their face, for the purpose of providing legal advice. ...

He was also able to cross-check that information with the records from the mailing centre. [18] I agree with the appellant that the evidence establishing continuity of the notice of assessment’s path from preparation through transmission could have been brought into sharper relief during the examination-in-chief and that the connection between the appellant’s notice of assessment and cycle 1927 would have benefitted from more explicit elucidation. ...

Analysis Concept of tax shelter   [5]              The term  “tax shelter” is defined as follows in section 237.1 of the Act: [1]  “tax shelter” means (a) a gifting arrangement described by paragraph (b) of the definition “gifting arrangement”; and (b) a gifting arrangement described by paragraph (a) of the definition “gifting arrangement”, or a property (including any right to income) other than a flow-through share or a prescribed property, in respect of which it can reasonably be considered, having regard to statements or representations made or proposed to be made in connection with the gifting arrangement or the property, that, if a person were to enter into the gifting arrangement or acquire an interest in the property, at the end of a particular taxation year that ends within four years after the day on which the gifting arrangement is entered into or the interest is acquired,  (i) the total of all amounts each of which is (A) an amount, or a loss in the case of a partnership interest, represented to be deductible in computing the person’s income for the particular year or any preceding taxation year in respect of the gifting arrangement or the interest in the property (including, if the property is a right to income, an amount or loss in respect of that right that is stated or represented to be so deductible), or (B) any other amount stated or represented to be deemed under this Act to be paid on account of the person’s tax payable, or to be deductible in computing the person’s income, taxable income or tax payable under this Act, for the particular year or any preceding taxation year in respect of the gifting arrangement or the interest in the property, other than an amount so stated or represented that is included in computing a loss described in clause (A), would equal or exceed (ii) the amount, if any, by which (A) the cost to the person of the property acquired under the gifting arrangement, or of the interest in the property at the end of the particular year, determined without reference to section 143.2,      would exceed (B) the total of all amounts each of which is the amount of any prescribed benefit that is expected to be received or enjoyed, directly or indirectly, in respect of the property acquired under the gifting arrangement, or of the interest in the property, by the person or another person with whom the person does not deal at arm’s length. ... In that decision, Ryer J.A. wrote that the property contemplated by the definition of tax shelter is each and every property that is offered for sale to prospective purchasers. [5] The judge added that the definition requires that to conclude a tax shelter exists, statements or representations must be made, at some time, in connection with the property that is offered for sale. [6] S tatements must have been made prior to any actual sale by the person who proposes to sell ...

The taxpayer in that case did not attend any classes at the Canadian campus nor was there any other connection to the Canadian campus ...   [12]          In Cammidge and Robinson there was no indication that the taxpayer attended any classes at the Canadian locations of the University of Phoenix nor was there any indication that there was any other connection between the Canadian locations and the taxpayers. ...

In this connection, I would like to refer to the following passage of the Income Tax Appeal Board decision in the case of Geoffrey Hogan v. ... It cannot be, in my view, seriously disputed that the advances or loans that could not be repaid to the appellant by I.C.B.I. and Lobstick were made in connection with business deals or transactions of a class usually entered into by the appellant. ...

Up to that year he had never sought to deduct, in computing his income for tax purposes, any part of the expense which he had ineurred in proving the invention but in his return for that year he deducted $3,588 representing 147 of an amount of $61,000 which he calculated to be the total amount of his expenses in connection therewith. The Minister having disallowed the whole of such claim, the appellant appealed to the Tax Appeal Board which held that a sum of $500 representing costs incidental to the application for the patent were costs in respect of which capital cost allowance might be claimed but that the appellant was not entitled to capital cost allowance in respect of the other sums allegedly expended in connection with the invention. ...

Richardson: In connection with the significant and substantial services provided by him to the company, its predecessors and the Grizzly Monkman project during the past 30 years in addition to the duties he has performed as a director of the company. ... Richardson is to be allotted 75,000 company shares in connection with the significant and substantial services provided by him to the company, its predecessors and the Grizzly-Monkman project during the past thirty years in addition to the duties he has performed as a director of the company, which shares are to be issued to them as fully paid and non-assessable shares subject to the requirements of the regulatory securities authorities. ...

I have extracted from those various cases the relevant factors that were considered, none of which is necessarily determinative in itself:  -          duration of stay (depending on whether ties with the old location (residence) were severed);-          accommodation;-          community connections maintained or severed;-          social and economic ties;-          transfer of mail;-          driver's license;-          health cards;-          vehicle registration;-          taxpayer's family;-          were significant attachments left behind? ... Duration of stay, accommodation, community connections maintained or severed, transfers of mail, licenses, health cards and vehicle registrations are just some of the factors which must be analyzed and considered. ...

Thomas, and the President’s secretary was sometimes used to type letters in connection with the appellant’s affairs. ... At pages 62-3, he also said: “I have dealt with this question so far without reference to the special argument which counsel for the respondents put forward in connection with the particular agreements under which the income is derived in this case... ...

During this same year it realized a taxable capital gain of $5,906 from the disposition of real property which had been used or held in connection with the plaintiffs business. ... He might, to achieve a similar result, arrange with a retailer to give him a discount in return for undertaking to do all business with him, or he might for example purchase from a wholesaler if he had the proper connections to do so. ...