Search - connection

  [11]            T he Tax Court Judge went on to consider whether there was a sufficient connection between the refund and the production and processing activities. ... In particular, she relied on these decisions to dispose of the Crown’s argument that there was not a sufficient connection between income tax and production and processing activities because income tax is paid after these activities are completed (reasons at para. 25). ...

They were also respondents in the appearance filed in the Superior Court in connection with the continuance of suit: ibid. at tab 16. ... That explains the appearance filed in connection with the continuance of suit, the filing for a rehearing of the motion for forced surrender and for taking in payment and the judgment dated June 27, 1997, granting the appellants (who were the applicants in the continuance of suit) ownership of the immovable.   ...

A short vacation break from work does not mean that an employee ceases to be an active employee. [20]            The wording of subsection 9(1) of the CPP is different from the analogous subsection 2(1) of the Insurable Earnings and Collection of Premiums Regulations, SOR/97-33, issued in connection with the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23. ...   [23]            Consequently, in my opinion, this decision is of limited assistance to the Minister in the present case, where Parliament has indicated through its use of the word “for”, rather than “in respect of”, that a close connection must exist between the payment and the performance of services.   ...

The evidence is straightforward and un-equivocating on this point. [25]          On this basis I find that the Minister was correct in denying the Applicant’s application, received March 28, 2013, for the NHR. [26]          In connection at least with the NHR, the Respondent presented at the hearing a further argument that there was no amending agreement to move the brothers’ father off the purchase and sale agreement and the two brothers on. ... The same is true of this Court, and is fundamental to this Court’s responsibility to interpret and apply the law, whether on an appeal that leads to this Court agreeing with or over-ruling the Minister’s decision-making on the point(s) appealed. [31]          Also, the Appellant as noted above seemingly has pleaded that alternatively he is appealing:... from the suspension, pursuant to subsection 188.2(2) of the Income Tax Act, of its authority to issue an official receipt referred to in Part XXXV of the Income Tax Regulations. [32]          With respect, this provision addresses charitable gift receipts, and thus has no connection or relevance to the case at bar. [33]          I turn now to subsection 296(2.1) of the Act, pleaded by the Appellant. ...

Carroll testified about the affidavit of service that he had sworn on June 14, 2017, in connection with service of the Show Cause Order upon the Respondents. ... She testified that, according to records obtained from the Corporate Affairs Registry for the Province of New Brunswick, the personal Respondent is the sole shareholder and director of the corporate Respondent. [19]   In connection with the income tax audit, the Moncton office of the CRA sent letters dated July 6, 2016, called an “Audit Confirmation Letter”, to each of the Respondents, asking for certain documents and banking records including income tax returns and schedules, financial statements, personal investment statements and personal banking documents. ...

Excluded are security deposits and damage and loss reimbursement payments. [4]   Sections 4 and 5 under the heading “Owner’s Joint Venture Contributions” provide that the Owner agrees to make each Property available for leasing and use for benefit of each JV and to pay for its expenses in connection with each JV per terms of the JVA. ... Section 16, re “GST”, provides that each of Owner and MC is responsible for remitting GST per the Act collected in respect of commercial rents according to their proportionate interests in the GROI and shall be entitled to own ITCs in respect of property and services consumed, used or supplied in connection therewith. ...

(g) precisely 12 minutes before the close of business on the deadline set by this Court, the Respondent advised the Appellants that: (i)   She considered that the Appellants’ request was “not mandatory” under the Rules: (ii)   She would be willing to provide only a small portion of the documents requested; (iii)   before She did so, the Appellants must give undertakings not mandated by the Rules of this Court that would effectively prevent the Appellants from making any effective use of the documents in the prosecution of these appeals: and (iv)   the Respondent had redacted or excluded documents containing taxpayer information within the meaning of section 241 of the Income Tax Act. [14]   To be fair to the Respondent, its’ letter of September 28, 2018 offered to provide the Appellants with over 16,000 documents and contained conditions that the Appellants sign an acknowledgment that these documents are to be used only in connection with these matters in accordance with the implied undertaking rule and that they would respect the confidentiality requirements of section 241 and thus not disclose that personal information set out in that section. ... The Order was clearly intended to move the matter along so that, absent agreement, the Appellants could bring a motion for document disclosure beyond the Rule 81 list of documents that had already been exchanged over a year earlier, if they chose to and do so knowing what, if any, matters would be in dispute in connection therewith. [25]   The fact the Appellants were not satisfied with the Respondent’s reply does not mean the Respondent did not comply with my Order, nor does it matter that the Respondent replied on the last day as same was still within the time given under the Order in question. ...

The appellants also submit that, since all the documents and information related to the underlying reassessments were, and are, in the possession of the Canada Revenue Agency (the “CRA”), the onus is on the respondent to prove the correctness of the underlying reassessments. [5]   With respect to Newgate’s underlying reassessments for the 2005 and 2006 taxation years, the respondent argues that because of the appellants’ connection with Newgate, the burden of proof should not be reversed and the appellants bear the burden of proving that the underlying reassessments are incorrect. ... There was therefore a sufficient connection with Newgate to justify not reversing the onus with respect to those taxation years. ...

. … […] 147.3 (3) An amount is transferred from a registered pension plan (in this subsection referred to as the “transferor plan”) in accordance with this subsection if the amount 147.3 (3) Un montant est transféré d’un régime de pension agréé donné conformément au présent paragraphe si les conditions suivantes sont réunies: (a) is a single amount; a) il s’agit d’un montant unique; (b) consists of all or any part of the property held in connection with a defined benefit provision of the transferor plan; b) le montant représente tout ou partie des biens détenus relativement à une disposition à prestations déterminées du régime donné; (c) is transferred directly to another registered pension plan to be held in connection with a defined benefit provision of the other plan; and c) le montant est transféré directement à un autre régime de pension agréé pour qu’il soit détenu relativement à une disposition à prestations déterminées de ce régime; (d) is transferred as a consequence of benefits becoming provided under the defined benefit provision of the other plan to one or more individuals who were members of the transferor plan. d) le montant est transféré du fait que des prestations sont prévues par la disposition à prestations déterminées de l’autre régime pour un ou plusieurs particuliers qui participent au régime donné. … […] 147.3 (9) Where an amount is transferred in accordance with any of subsections (1) to (8), 147.3 (9) Les montants transférés conformément à l’un des paragraphes (1) à (8) ne peuvent: (a) the amount shall not, by reason only of that transfer, be included by reason of subparagraph 56(1)(a)(i) in computing the income of any taxpayer; a) de ce seul fait, être inclus dans le calcul du revenu d’un contribuable en application du sous-alinéa 56(1)a)(i); … […] 152. (3.1) For the purposes of subsections (4), (4.01), (4.2), (4.3), (5) and (9), the normal reassessment period for a taxpayer in respect of a taxation year is 152. (3.1) Pour l’application des paragraphes (4), (4.01), (4.2), (4.3), (5) et (9), la période normale de nouvelle cotisation applicable à un contribuable pour une année d’imposition s’étend sur les périodes suivantes: (a) if at the end of the year the taxpayer is a mutual fund trust or a corporation other than a Canadian-controlled private corporation, the period that ends four years after the earlier of the day of sending of a notice of an original assessment under this Part in respect of the taxpayer for the year and the day of sending of an original notification that no tax is payable by the taxpayer for the year; and a) quatre ans suivant soit la date d’envoi d’un avis de première cotisation en vertu de la présente partie le concernant pour l’année, soit, si elle est antérieure, la date d’envoi d’une première notification portant qu’aucun impôt n’est payable par lui pour l’année, si, à la fin de l’année, le contribuable est une fiducie de fonds commun de placement ou une société autre qu’une société privée sous contrôle canadien; (b) in any other case, the period that ends three years after the earlier of the day of sending of a notice of an original assessment under this Part in respect of the taxpayer for the year and the day of sending of an original notification that no tax is payable by the taxpayer for the year. b) trois ans suivant celle de ces dates qui est antérieure à l’autre, dans les autres cas. … […] 152. (9) The Minister may advance an alternative argument in support of an assessment at any time after the normal reassessment period unless, on an appeal under this Act 152. (9) Le ministre peut avancer un nouvel argument à l’appui d’une cotisation après l’expiration de la période normale de nouvelle cotisation, sauf si, sur appel interjeté en vertu de la présente loi: (a) there is relevant evidence that the taxpayer is no longer able to adduce without the leave of the court; and a) d’une part, il existe des éléments de preuve que le contribuable n’est plus en mesure de produire sans l’autorisation du tribunal; (b) it is not appropriate in the circumstances for the court to order that the evidence be adduced. b) d’autre part, il ne convient pas que le tribunal ordonne la production des éléments de preuve dans les circonstances. … […] 248. (1) … “ registered pension plan”  means a pension plan (other than a pooled pension plan) that has been registered by the Minister for the purposes of this Act and whose registration has not been revoked; 248. (1) […] «  régime de pension agréé »  Régime de pension, sauf un régime de pension collectif, que le ministre a agréé pour l’application de la présente loi et dont l’agrément n’a pas été retiré.   ...

There was no evidence to suggest that he had purchased properties other than 310 Cranston Park and the Property. [41]   Before he secured stable employment with the TTC, the Appellant did an eclectic series of jobs, none of which had a close connection to real estate transactions. ... Their father’s occupation as a cabinet maker is related to residential and/or commercial interiors, but the connection to real estate transactions is remote. [43]   Therefore, this factor favors a finding on account of capital. (3) The nature of the property and the use made of it by the taxpayer [44]   The Property is a residential apartment-style condominium which sold relatively quickly after it was listed. ...