Search - connection

Section 58(4) of the Estate Tax Act permits a deduction in connection with.. any property in respect of which a deduction may... be made under any of the paragraphs (a) to (h) of sub-section 1 of Section 7...” and the Section clearly contemplates, and grants a right to, the executors to take a deduction under Section 7 (and to apportion the tax on the balance of the Assets of the Estate) as they see fit. ... It is to be noted that the $625,000 deduction granted under Section 7(1)(b) in connection with the $25,000 per annum payments to Mrs. ...

Rather, the deductions claimed in this case are for the taxes Emergis paid to the US Government on the interest paid by USGP on the Emergis Loan. [14] As part of his textual analysis, the Tax Court Judge found that while the words “in respect of” are very broad, it is still necessary to find a connection between the US taxes paid by Emergis and the dividend income received by NSULC (paragraph 69 of his reasons). [15] In paragraph 71 of his reasons, the Tax Court Judge referred to the specific wording of the exception in issue: [71] However, the reference in subsection 20(12) to the U.S. tax “that can reasonably be regarded as having been paid by a corporation in respect of income from a share of the capital stock of a foreign affiliate of the corporation” clearly suggests to consider whether the income from shares received by a corporation other than the taxpayer can reasonably be regarded as the one in respect of which the U.S. tax [was] paid by the taxpayer claiming the deduction. [16] The Tax Court Judge then considered the flow of funds used to pay the interest and concluded that “there is some connection between the interest income paid by USGP and the dividends paid by LLC to USGP, which were reclaimed and reported by Emergis through its partnership interest in USGP” (paragraph 74 of his reasons). ...

(Hugessen and MacGuigan, JJ.A. concurring):—This is an appeal from a reported decision of the Trial Division, [1988] 2 C.T.C. 274; 88 D.T.C. 6478, which upheld the assessment of the appellant's 1979 and 1980 income tax returns on the basis that he was not entitled to claim certain expenses pursuant to paragraph 8(1)(f) of the Income Tax Act, which provides: 8. (1) In computing a taxpayer's income for a taxation year from an office or employment, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as are wholly applicable to that source or such part of the following amounts as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto: (f) 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 in 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 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. ...

The Queen, [1987] 2 F.C. 171; [1987] 1 C.T.C. 210, where a newly resident corporation tried unsuccessfully to deduct noncapital losses earned at a time it had no connection whatsoever with Canada. ...

Under the OETC scheme, an individual can earn up to $80,000.00 free of Canadian tax liability. [6]                 The relevant portions of subsection 122.3(1) for the purposes of this application are as follows: 122.3 (1) Where an individual is resident in Canada in a taxation year and, throughout any period of more than 6 consecutive months that commenced before the end of the year and included any part of the year (in this subsection referred to as the "qualifying period")                                           (a) was employed by a person who was a specified employer, other than for the performance of services under a prescribed international development assistance program of the Government of Canada, and (b) performed all or substantially all the duties of the individual's employment outside Canada (i) in connection with a contract under which the specified employer carried on business outside Canada with respect to... ...

In other words, a dealing in trade paper such as takes place, for instance, in connection with the sales of thousands of automobiles annually. ...

Connections to outside sources of water and electricity are provided. ...

What is required is a logical connection between the “what”-- the verdict-- and the “why”-- the basis for the verdict. ...

" She also found from the record before her that the alleged connection between the services rendered and the dividends issued had not been established with the result that it was not necessary to determine, for the purposes of section 160, whether the work presumably performed could constitute valuable consideration for the issuance of dividends. [5]       The applicants did not satisfy us that this decision of the Tax Court of Canada was vitiated by an error in law and that the findings of fact the Court drew from the evidence were unreasonable. [6]       For these reasons, despite the laudable efforts of Mr. ...

In that connection the learned trial Judge quotes Prof H L Trevor-Roper thus: Each Bruderhof... is an agricultural family... but it is not only or mainly an economic organism. ...