Search - connection

(my emphasis) [25]      These words in subparagraph 48(5)(a)(iv) require more than a simple connection of the royalties with the goods imported. This simple connection test, which is evidenced by the words "in respect of the goods", in fact refers to the second criterion enumerated in subparagraph 48(5)(a)(iv). ... I have already concluded that more than a connection test is required. ...

Instead, it purports to be a grant of a nonexclusive licence to use the system in connection with the design and construction of the respondent’s ships, the forming of sections of ships and for other industrial applications for which the system may be suitable. ... The relevant portions of section 106 read as follows: (1) Every non-resident person shall pay an income tax of 15% on every amount that a person resident in Canada pays or credits, or is deemed by Part I to pay or credit, to him as, on account or in lieu of payment of, or in satisfaction of, (d) rent, royalty or a similar payment, including, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing, any payment (i) for the use of or for the right to use in Canada any property, invention, trade name, patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula, process or other thing whatever, (ii) for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience where the total amount payable as consideration for such information is dependent in whole or in part upon (A) the use to be made thereof or the benefit to be derived therefrom, (B) production or sales of goods or services, or (C) profits, (iii) for services of an industrial, commercial or scientific character performed by a non-resident person where the total amount payable as consideration in whole or in part upon (A) the use to be made thereof or the benefit to be derived therefrom, (B) production or sales of goods or services, or (C) profits, but not including a payment made for services performed in connection with the sale of property or the negotiation of a contract, (iv) made pursuant to an agreement between a person resident in Canada and a non-resident person under which the non-resident person agrees not to use or not to permit any other person to use any thing referred to in subparagraph (i) or any information referred to in subparagraph (ii), or (v) that was dependent upon the use of or production from property in Canada whether or not it was an instalment on the sale price of the property, but not including an instalment on the sale price of agricultural land, but not including (vi) a royalty or similar payment on or in respect of a copyright, (vii) a payment in respect of the use by a railway company of railway rolling stock as defined in paragraph (25) of section 2 of the Railway Act, viii) a payment made under a bona fide cost-sharing arrangement under which the person making the payment shares on a reasonable basis with one or more non-resident persons research and development expenses in exchange for an interest in any or all property or other things of value that may result therefrom, or (ix) a rental payment for the use of or the right to use outside of Canada any corporeal property; The only material difference in the relevant wording of section 212 is that under it the tax is fixed at 25%. ... The word “rental” is not a familiar one to use in connection with property rights of the kinds enumerated but I see no reason to think that when used in reference thereto it would connote characteristics different from those it has in its more familiar use in relation to tangible property. ...

As the deduction claimed was but $170 and the tax in controversy was even less and thus far below the $2,500 referred to in subsection 178(2)* [1] of the Income Tax Act the award of costs against the respondent was plainly erroneous and instead the judgment should have ordered the Minister of National Revenue to pay all reasonable and proper costs of the taxpayer in connection with the appeal to the Trial Division. ... I would allow the appeal in part, set aside the part of the judgment of the Trial Division which awards costs to the respondent and in its place order the Minister of National Revenue, pursuant to subsection 178(2) of the Income Tax Act, to pay all reasonable and proper costs of the appellant in connection with the respondent’s appeal to the Trial Division. ... As success is divided there should be no costs of this appeal to either party. 1 *Where, on an appeal by the Minister other than by way of cross-appeal, from a decision of the Tax Review Board, the amount of tax that is in controversy does not exceed $2,500, the Federal Court, in delivering judgment disposing of the appeal, shall order the Minister to pay all reasonable and proper costs of the taxpayer in connection therewith. ...

Control [3]         In connection with the control which characterizes master-servant relations in a contract of employment, and thus the relationship of subordination required between the employer and employee, the Tax Court of Canada deputy judge considered inter alia the following facts: (a)         Mr. ... Two comments should be made in this connection. First, this special equipment is not available on the market and Mr. ... Blouin, who used his own vehicle for work, had to pay the losses resulting from an accident in which he was involved and obtain another vehicle. [18] [20]       In our view, the first two points noted by the trial judge in this connection indicate the existence of a contract of enterprise between the plaintiff and Service Électronique Enr. and Mr. ...

The basis of the appellant’s claim to deduct the payments in 1959 rather than in the taxation year in which they accrued is subsection 12(3) which at the material times read as follows: 12. (3) In computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year, no deduction shall be made in respect of an otherwise deductible outlay or expense payable by the taxpayer to a person with whom he was not dealing at arm’s payer’s income computed in accordance with this Act on the assumption that he had during the taxation year no income except from that source or those sources of income and was entitled to no deductions except those related to that source or those sources; and If this provision does not apply, the results in connection with such matters as business losses and deductions such as those for capital costs would be so unrealistic as not to be acceptable. length if the amount thereof has not been paid before the day one year after the end of the taxation year; but, if an amount that was not deductible in computing the income of one taxation year by virtue of this subsection was subsequently paid, it may be deducted in computing the taxpayer’s income for the taxation year in which it was paid. ... However, at all material times paragraph 12(1)(c) provided: 12. (1) In computing income, no deduction shall be made in respect of (c) an outlay or expense to the extent that it may reasonably be regarded as having been made or incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing exempt income or in connection with property the income from which would be exempt, The appellant sought to avoid the application of this provision on two grounds. ... In connection with this submission it was contended that what was authorized by paragraph 11(1)(c) was a deduction of interest in computing global income of the taxpayer and that the deduction could not be related to any particular source of income of the taxpayer such as, in this case, the operation of the appellant’s mine and this even though that was the only business carried on by the appellant. ...

The Queen, 2003 TCC 185. [2]                 Although the Applicant restarted his business as a sole proprietorship, he has not established a connection, direct or indirect, between the purchase of the legal services and any ongoing supply of taxable services. ...

He never asked himself whether there was a connection between the plaintiff's terms of employment and his non-arm's-length relationship * with the payer. [4]                If he had taken the right approach the judge would have found that in the case at bar the evidence showed that so far as working conditions were concerned the plaintiff was treated in the same way as the payer's other employees. ...

While the Tax Court judge does not elaborate on the legal principles which he applied in this connection, it appears to us that as a matter of law he was entitled to treat the main ranch house, in the years in question, as being developed and held for personal use of the taxpayer. ...

The position of the appellants is that these expenses were incurred by CRP for subcontracting or consulting, and for meals and entertainment, in connection with a contractual relationship between CRP and Mr. ...

.), for amounts that he claimed to have paid to an assistant in connection with his employment with Vaughan Engineering. [3]                By virtue of subsection 8(10) of the Income Tax Act, Mr. ...