Search - connection

In that connection the word “exclusively” used both in section 91 and in section 92 indicates a settled line of demarcation and it does not belong to either Parliament, or the Legislatures, to confer powers upon the other. ... I do not see any real connection between the Lord Nelson Hotel case, which was a matter of delegation of powers, the Winterhaven case, which involved spending, but not delegation, and the present case, which involves the question of direct taxation by Federal Income Tax and GST within a province. ...

It is his contention that this subparagraph should only be applied to the business executive who is provided with a company car for his personal use, although he is also expected to use it in connection with his business, but that for someone in the position of defendant it is paragraph 6(1)(a) which should be applied and he should be deemed to be receiving a benefit as a result of being allowed to use the car for personal use when it is not being used for business purposes. ... Instead of basing the charge on the actual use of the car, and the proportion of all the expenses in connection therewith, which required also a determination of the percentage of personal use as compared with business use, paragraphs 6(1)(e) and 6(2)(a) base the charge solely on availability of the car whether it is used or not and apply the percentage formula so calculated solely to capital cost of the car. ...

Mr Medjuck replied on February 20, 1968 (Exhibit 12) as follows: I am sorry I was unable to keep our appointment to-day in connection with your land at Clayton Park. ... In my view ali that the evidence establishes in this connection is that probably the plaintiff commissioned the preparation of Exhibit 8, described as “a very preliminary study worksheet” and as a “Contour Plan Sketch” and that the plaintiff paid the architectural firm the sum of $388 for services rendered. ...

Mr Abrams, in his testimony, confirmed that of Mr Levitt’s in this connection. ... I adapt the words of Cattanach, J in Alpine Furniture Company Limited et al v MNR (supra) to indicate my views of the appellants’ evidence in this connection: It is inconceivable to me in this day when the incidence of tax is always present that persons with the business experience and acumen which [Victor Levitt] possessed would have been oblivious of the tax advantage that might result from the arrangement adopted and it is even more inconceivable that the incidence of tax was not raised and discussed with [him] by the specialists whom [he] consulted. ...

Respondent’s counsel argued that the use of the word “distributed” in connection with the word ‘‘transferred’’ in Section 64(3) in a cognate sense has the effect of narrowing the meaning of the word ‘‘transferred’’, quoting as authority for this Maxwell on Statutes, 12th ed., at page 289: When two or more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together, noscuntur a sociis, they are understood to be used in their cognate sense. ... In this connection he referred to the case of Commissioner of Stamp Duties (Queensland) v. ...

Appellant’s counsel submitted that appellant had followed all the steps. required by the Income Tax Act in connection with its appeal against the original assessment which was properly before the Court for adjudication. ... Originally, and until 1954, the manufacturing business was carried on in partnership by the Slan Brothers and the partnership owned not only the manufacturing business but the land and plant and equipment used in connection therewith. ...

In this connection reference may be made to Section 4 of the Income Tax Act which reads: 4, Subject to the other provisions of this Part, income for a taxation year from a business or property is the profit therefrom for the year. ... In this connection see also the decision of Thorson, P., in the Exchequer Court of Canada, in Lumbers v. ...

., [1975] C.T.C. 517, 75 D.T.C. 5359 Cattanach, J: 1 These are appeals from a decision by the Tax Review Board whereby the appeals by the defendant herein to that Board from assessments by the Minister of National Revenue for the 1970 and 1971 taxation years were allowed. 2 The assessments by the Minister were consequent upon the sale of three properties by the defendant, two of which were situate in the City of Calgary, Alberta, and the third was situate in the City of Edmonton, Alberta. 3 The Minister added to the defendant's income for its 1970 taxation year the amount of $23,000, being the gain realized by the defendant on the sale of the Edmonton property, and $39,640 being the gain realized upon the sale of one of the Calgary properties, referred to as the 6th St Property, being a total amount of $62,640 less an amount of $1,367.75 for legal fees incurred by the defendant in connection with the two sales which resulted in an addition of $61,212.25 to the appellant's income for that year by the Minister. 4 With respect to the defendant's 1971 taxation year the Minister added to the defendant's income for that year a net amount of $4,813.59 being the gain realized by the defendant upon the sale of the other property owned by it in the City of Calgary. 5 There is no dispute between the parties as to the amounts involved but the question for determination is the familiar one as to whether profits realized from the sale of these three parcels of real estate were income for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. 6 The rival contentions of the parties can be succinctly put. 7 On behalf of the defendant it is contended that the gains realized by it on the sale of the three properties were capital gains, in that the gains so realized were mere enhancements in value of capital assets owned by the defendant for the purpose of gaining rental income therefrom which by virtue of unusual circumstances prevailing it was obliged to sell and hence an enhanced price of a capital asset and accordingly not income accessable to income tax. 8 On the other hand the contention on behalf of the Minister is that the gains were made in the operation of a business or a venture in the nature of trade in that it was the defendant's intention to turn the properties to account whenever it became profitable to do so. 9 The onus of establishing that the former was the case falls on the defendant. 10 Put colloquially, were the three parcels of real estate sold by the defendant a realization of capital assets when it was no longer expedient to retain them as such, or were the three properties inventory or stock-in-trade in a venture in the nature of trade as contended by the Minister. 11 It has been repeatedly held that cases of this sort must all depend on their particular facts. 12 In the present appeals I am therefore obliged to consider the facts particularly applicable to the sale of each of the three properties and in the light of facts generally applicable to the business of the defendant and the manner in which it conducted that business. 13 The defendant was one joint stock company in a complex of some 25 companies carrying on the business of supplying or performing support services, equipment, material and business incidental or indigenous to a construction business. ... On the contrary the property was forthwith offered for sale and sold shortly after it was so offered. 72 In my opinion the gain realized by the defendant on the sale of this property was a profit from a “business” within the meaning of sections 3 and 4 of the Income Tax Act as extended by paragraph 139(1)(e) thereof, and therefore properly assessed by the Minister as income to the defendant. 73 The appeal by the Minister with respect to the defendant's 1971 taxation year is therefore allowed. 74 In summary, the appeal with respect to the defendant's 1970 taxation year is: (1) dismissed with respect to the gain of $23,000 realized upon the sale of the Edmonton Property; and (2) allowed with respect to the gain of $39,640 realized upon the sale of the 6th St Calgary Property. 75 The net amount added to the defendant's income was the total of $23,000 and $39,640, less an amount of $1,367.75 for legal fees in connection with both sales. ...

El-Nakady to the Crown in connection with collection. The $4,433.93 amount is stated to represent additional amounts owing from Mr. ... El-Nakady’s tax assessment for the 2017 year, and the resulting correctness of his tax assessments for subsequent years. [29] In my view, the jurisdictional issue is not affected by the fact that these paragraphs effectively claim the payment of money, since such payments are said to be due and owing only in connection with the correction of the underlying tax assessments. ...

The Applicants’ Written Submissions [16] The Applicant’s written submissions are framed in connection with relief that the Applicant does not seek in in his NOA. ... Yatar arose in connection with the Ontario Divisional Court and Court of Appeal’s decision to decline to undertake judicial review on the merits of a decision by a Licence Appeal Tribunal adjudicator’s decision with respect to income replacement benefits, housekeeping benefits and home maintenance benefits pursuant to the Ontario Insurance Act, the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule — Accidents on or After November 1, 1996, O. ...