Search - connection

Subject to the decision to be rendered in connection with the sum of $11,058.77 (see paragraphs 3.9 and 4.2.3) the net profits, according to the income and expenditure account filed as Exhibit 1-2, were $22,000. ...

The discovery of illegal acts (committed before the appellant arrived) with respect to a sum of over $50,000 in connection with a trust account containing funds of longterm employees also caused a stir and led to dissatisfaction with the hospital. 3.7 The appellant took the necessary steps to obtain a grant of $750,000 to renovate the hospital. 3.8 Even though the appellant was criticized by some, his work was nonetheless also appreciated since on April 4, 1974 the hospital’s board of directors recommended an increase in salary, in a letter addressed to the Department of Social Affairs filed as Exhibit A-3. 3.9 According to the appellant, there was nonetheless pressure on the appellant to resign, mostly from representatives of socio-economic groups. 3.10 The appellant was approached early in July 1974 regarding this subject. ...

—where the taxpayer was employed in the year in connection with the selling of property or negotiating of contracts for his employer, and (i) under the contract of employment was required to pay his own expenses, (ii) was ordinarily required to carry on the duties of his employment away from his employer’s place of business, (iii) was remunerated in whole or part by commissions or similar amounts fixed by reference to the volume of sales made or the contracts negotiated, and (iv) was not in receipt of an allowance for travelling expenses in respect of the taxation year that was, by virtue of subparagraph 6(1)(b)(v), not included in computing his income, amounts expended by him in the year for the purpose of earning the income from the employment (not exceeding the commissions or similar amounts fixed as aforesaid received by him 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), or (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 him. 8.(2) General limitation. ...

In this connection, the following comment to be found at pp 6 and 597 respectively of the Wallace decision (supra), was cited to the Board: What troubles me is that magnitude of the error made by the appellant in declaring his taxable income. ...

It can be a child of a person who has no blood connection whatsoever with that child pursuant to the Divorce Act and pursuant to the Family Law Reform Act, it can be any person who has parented a child regardless of whether they had married the natural mother or not. ...

In this connection I have examined the case of Frigidaire Corporation v Johanna Malone, [1934] S.C.R. 121, to which I was referred which gives a broad interpretation to the words “commercial matters generally’’ in Article 2268, but the facts in that case were substantially different and indicate that a relatively common commercial transaction was involved which is not the case here so it has no application. ...

It is of some significance with respect to the developing trend in this connection that subsection 16(1) of the Family Relations Act, 1972 (BC), c 20, spells out the matter even more clearly; however, that Act was not in force at the relevant times. ...

The Minister assessed the appellant’s loss in connection with the sale of the building at a lesser figure than that computed by the appellant as the Minister was of the view that the appellant had reduced the indebtedness it owed to those five creditors, save Fonthill, at a saving to it of $35,659.03 and consequently its costs of the building did not include the full amount which had been owing to those four creditors by Oak Lake, but rather that amount less $35,659.03. ...

—where the taxpayer was employed in the year in connection with the selling of property or negotiating of contracts for his employer, and (i) under the contract of employment was required to pay his own expenses, (ii) was ordinarily required to carry on the duties of his employment away from his 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 travelling expenses in respect of the taxation year that was, by virtue of subparagraph 6(1)(b)(v), not included in computing his income, amounts expended by him in the year for the purpose of earning the income from the employment (not exceeding the commissions, or other similar amounts fixed as aforesaid received by him 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), or (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 him; (2) General limitation. ...

See also paragraph 139(1)(ae) of the Income Tax Act which includes as “personal and living expenses” and therefore not deductible for tax purposes, the expenses of properties maintained by the taxpayer for his own use and benefit, and not maintained in connection with a business carried on for profit or with a reasonable expectation of profit. ...