Search - connection

I questioned the Appellant briefly at the commencement of the hearing and am satisfied that he does not have an adequate knowledge of the English language to present his appeal without an interpreter or to read and understand all of the documents which may have been put to him and that he may have signed in connection with any work. [8]            The Appellant was not asked by counsel whether he had assistance drafting his Notice of Appeal. ...

And... the appellant's document... which is attached to the Aubin affidavit, which sets out that Smith Kline's review of the Dyson report in connection with pressure on its transfer price discloses that this report prepared by the Canadian government showed third party prices for the years 1981 to 1985 ranging from $288 down to $69 a kilo.... ...

.____________________________________________________________________ Agent for the Appellant: Keith Bannon Counsel for the Respondent: Nicole Levasseur____________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment (Delivered orally from the Bench at Ottawa, Canada, on January 8, 1998) Bowie, J.T.C.C. [1]            These appeals concern the Appellant's claim to be entitled, when computing his income under section 3 of the Income Tax Act (the Act), to deduct from his other income the losses sustained by him in connection with renting two apartments. ...

He shall pay all taxes, rates, levies, insurance premiums, mortgages (principal and interest) and the cost of all reasonable and necessary repairs including repairs of a capital nature for and in connection with the real property. ...

The section was enacted as a measure designed to thwart the use of offshore investment funds which permitted taxpayers resident in Canada a complete escape from or indefinite deferral of tax on passive income. [1] [3]            Subsection 94.1(1) reads in part: 94.1 (1) Where in a taxation year a taxpayer, other than a non-resident-owned investment corporation, holds or has an interest in property (in this section referred to as an "offshore investment fund property") (a)            that is a share of the capital stock of, an interest in, or a debt of, a non-resident entity (other than a controlled foreign affiliate of the taxpayer or a prescribed non-resident entity) or an interest in or a right or option to acquire such a share, interest or debt, and (b)            that may reasonably be considered to derive its value, directly or indirectly, primarily from portfolio investments of that or any other non-resident entity in                 (i) shares of the capital stock of one or more corporations,                 (ii) indebtedness or annuities,                 (iii) interests in one or more corporations, trusts, partnerships, organizations, funds or entities,                 (iv) commodities,                 (v) real estate,                 (vi) Canadian or foreign resource properties,                 (vii) currency of a country other than Canada,                 (viii) rights or options to acquire or dispose of any of the foregoing, or                 (ix) any combination of the foregoing, and it may reasonably be concluded, having regard to all the circumstances, including (c)            the nature, organization and operation of any non-resident entity and the form of, and the terms and conditions governing, the taxpayer's interest in, or connection with, any non-resident entity, (d)            the extent to which any income, profits and gains that may reasonably be considered to be earned or accrued, whether directly or indirectly, for the benefit of any non-resident entity are subject to an income or profits tax that is significantly less than the income tax that would be applicable to such income, profits and gains if they were earned directly by the taxpayer, and (e)            the extent to which the income, profits and gains of any non-resident entity for any fiscal period are distributed in that or the immediately following fiscal period, that one of the main reasons for the taxpayer acquiring, holding or having the interest in such property was to derive a benefit from portfolio investments in assets described in any of subparagraphs (b)(i) to (ix) in such manner that the taxes, if any, on the income, profits and gains from such assets for any particular year are significantly less than the tax that would have been applicable under this Part if such income, profits and gains had been earned directly by the taxpayer,... [4]            The assessments in issue were based on the holding by the Appellant during the taxation years in question of shares of a corporation resident in Bermuda, Santa Maria Enterprises Limited ("Santa Maria"). ...

The Appellant knew that its agents would be required to pay for certain goods and services in connection with their work; that the agents would be paying GST on such goods and services; and that the agents would be able to claim ITCs if they were registered for GST purposes. ...

That places too narrow and inflexible a meaning on the words. [10] In the instant case, the Appellant suggested at the very end of the hearing, at the close of argument, that the amount of $6,500 had been given him by the Defence Department as a prize for achievement in connection with work he had done. ...

If it is arbitrary (and therefore wrong) to reduce the amount of interest deductible because the property was 100% financed, it would be equally arbitrary to pick a number of years (say three or five) in which the appellants must start earning a profit. [28] Here the appellants started earning a profit in eight years and have a plan to pay off the mortgage within a reasonable period of time. [29] I find as a fact that the appellants have demonstrated that, contrary to the four bases of disallowance set forth in the assumptions, they had a reasonable expectation of profit, that the expenses in connection with this rental project were laid out for the purpose of gaining or producing income, that they were not personal or living expenses and that they were not unreasonable. [30] In fact the last point, that the expenses were unreasonable, was abandoned at trial. ...

Then, when he was confronted with the fact that he had provided the respondent with a letter of resignation dated July 2, 1991, he changed his version (see pages 25 and 26 of the stenographic notes of the examination for discovery) and admitted that he was a director, and then he went back to his first position claiming that, to the best of his knowledge, he had not been a director (see page 27). [13]     In addition, on August 14, 1992, the appellant also signed on the company's behalf a report in connection with its bankruptcy (see Exhibit I-4). [14]     In his testimony on cross-examination, the appellant admitted that he had been a director in 1989 or 1990 and merely said that his father, Lucien Brouillette, owned many companies at the time and had had him sign a number of documents. [15]     In the absence of further evidence, I find that the evidence before me is insufficient to establish that the appellant ceased to be a director of that company on July 2, 1991, or at any time thereafter, in fact. [16]     The appeal in respect of this assessment is therefore dismissed. [17]     With regard to the appeal from the assessment notice of which bears number 27980 concerning the source deductions made by Boulangerie Lasalle (Montréal-Nord) Inc., Exhibit I-5 indicates that the appellant signed a resolution as a shareholder and a director on June 27, 1986. ...

The Appellant purchased and developed the Land to meet housing requirements in connection with the Appellant's existing and intended commercial activities in the Town of Banff. ...