Search - connection

I find it impossible to adopt the view that a person who, by having the requisite voting power in a company subject to his will and ordering, can make the ultimate decision as to where and how the business of the company shall be carried on, and who thus has, in fact, control of the company’s affairs, is a person of whom it can be said that he has not in this connection got a controlling interest in the company. ’ ’ Counsel for the appellant in the instant case urged upon me that this portion of the judgment was authority for finding that Jones, in full control of the Vancouver Tug and Barge Co., which in turn had more than a majority of the shares in the appellant company, had, therefore, the controlling interest in the appellant company. ...

In connection with the rule that words must be construed according to their ordinary and grammatical sense reliance was placed on Beal’s Cardinal Rules of Legal Interpretation, 3rd edition, p. 343, where, under the heading “The Golden Rule”, the author states: Lieutenant’s pay, being $3.60 per day, less tax deducted of 804 $ 56.80 15 days at annual Camp at Captain’s pay, being $5.20 per day 78.00 $134.80 5. ...

The intention of Parliament must be gathered from the language employed, having regard to the context in connection with which it is used. ...

It was argued that the Minister in originally intimating his decision had in effect stated that he based it on the ground that the appellant company as licensees were not as such entitled under the Statute to any allowance for depletion of timber limits which belonged to the Crown, and in this connection reference was made to the evidence of Mr. ...

It is this fact alone which gives plausibility to the contention made on behalf of the respondent that the decision of the Minister in connection with the allowances for these years is conclusive and not the subject of appeal. ...

No doubt basing his opinion on the knowledge of the history of shortening and on his experience in research work in connection therewith, Dr. ...

I take the fact that his sister would cook for him as an indicator of his connection with family near the Property rather than as an indication that the Property was not a place of residence. [26] When he moved into the Property, Mr. ...

The agent did not find a connection between the Applicant’s non-compliance with tax obligations and a circumstance that was beyond his control. ...

Kirzner’s information collection process in connection with his retainer; (ii) Mr. ...

Back then, the appellant filed notices of objection with respect to 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998 within time. [5] There were also apparently outstanding related objections for 1992, 1993, and 1994. [6] [8] Approximately 1,200 taxpayers (including the appellant) were similarly reassessed by the Minister with respect to limited-partnership holdings in AFS and several other similar limited partnerships. [7] The parties reached a group settlement and minutes of settlement were executed in February 2012. [8] During the present hearing, counsel for the appellant invited the Court to review the details of the settlement as set out in Savics at the Tax Court level. [9] [9] For the purposes of this appeal, the relevant aspects of the settlement were that: (a) a portion of the previously disallowed non-capital (partnership) loss from 1995 would be allowed, and (b) if the appellant wished to avail himself of the settlement, he was required to sign a waiver of the right to object or appeal. [10] The Minister was also permitted to make adjustments not expressly addressed in the minutes, as long as they were not inconsistent with the express terms of the minutes. [11] [10] The relevant terms of the settlement are set out in the document entitled “Waiver of Right of Objection or Appeal” which the appellant executed on November 28, 2013. [12] The waiver provided (among other things) that he agreed to waive any right of objection or appeal to his 1995 and following taxation years with respect to AFS on condition that the Minister reassess him as follows: (i) allows me to claim as a deduction in my taxation year that includes December 31, 1995, the full amount of all deductions claimed by me in respect of the Partnership (including all interest, carrying charges and partnership losses) for such year less an amount equal to $355.23 per limited partnership unit of the Partnership held by me at the end of 1995; (ii) allows me to claim as a deduction in my taxation year that includes December 31, 1996, the full amount of all deductions claimed by me in respect of the Partnership (including all interest, carrying charges and partnership losses) for such year less an amount equal to $16.20 per limited partnership unit of the Partnership held by me at the end of 1996; (iii) allows all interest expense and carrying charges previously claimed by me in respect of the Partnership in any taxation year in which I have filed an objection or appeal or which is otherwise open for reassessment; (iv) allows me to claim interest expense in respect of my taxation year which includes the period from January 1, 2011 to January 17, 2011 in the amount of $3.07 per limited partnership unit of the Partnership held by me during that period; (v) allows any consequential claims by me for the carryforward or carryback of any losses resulting from the reassessments set forth above; and (vi) unless otherwise agreed to by me, does not make any other adjustment to my tax liability in connection with my investment in, or ownership of, limited partnership units of the Partnership other than consequential adjustments or other adjustments that are not expressly addressed by, and do not create a result that is inconsistent with, any of the preceding terms of the Waiver[sic]. [11] On June 30, 2014, the Canada Revenue Agency’s Appeals Division sent a letter to the appellant setting out the adjustments which would be made pursuant to the settlement. [13] The letter attached a settlement worksheet, copies of T7W-C forms explaining the changes with respect to 1995, 1996, and 1998, plus stated (among other things) that: a. additional non-capital losses of $304,374 would be allowed with respect to 1995; b. of the $304,374 loss, $260,312 would be carried back to 1992 and $44,062 would be carried back to 1993, thus using up the loss amount; and with respect to the years under appeal (1997 and 1998), no adjustments would be made to 1997 because net adjustments would result in an upward assessment while a carrying charge would be allowed for 1998. [12] Notices of reassessment were also issued on June 30, 2014 for the 1992, 1993, and 1998 taxation years, effecting the changes described in the letter. [14] The parties’ positions [13] The appellant says that the Minister improperly carried the $304,374 non-capital loss back to 1992 and 1993, because she did so without giving him a choice as to the application of the loss. ...