Search - connection

Position of the Parties (1) The Appellant [27] The Appellant submits that he was a commissioned employee because he was paid on a per patient visit basis and that he is entitled to deduct the expenses that he claimed for the Taxation Years. [28] With respect to the use of the home office, the percentages on the T2200s issued by the Employers add up to more than 50 percent and therefore the condition in paragraph 8(13)(a) is satisfied. (2) The Respondent [29] The Respondent submits that the Appellant was a salaried employee and denies the Appellant’s entitlement to a deduction of expenses greater than the expenses allowed by the Reassessments. [30] The Appellant was not employed in connection with the selling of property or the negotiation of contracts and therefore the deductions permitted by paragraph 8(1)(f) do not apply to the Appellant. [31] Contrary to the position of the Appellant, the use of a home office must be determined for each office or employment and the percentage of use for each of the three separate employments in issue in these appeals cannot be aggregated. [32] All but one of the T2200s indicates home office use by the Appellant of less than 50 percent and the remaining form indicates home office use of exactly 50 percent in 2015. ... The introductory words of paragraph 8(1)(f) state the following condition that must be met for the paragraph to apply to the Appellant: where the taxpayer was employed in the year in connection with the selling of property or negotiating of contracts for the taxpayer’s employer, and … [37] The Appellant is a registered nurse who provides nursing services to patients and who is compensated for those services on a per patient visit basis. ... Accordingly, the Appellant was not entitled to a deduction of motor vehicle expenses incurred in respect of his employment by ParaMed for any of the Taxation Years. [62] The fact that the CRA may have considered a greater per kilometer allowance than that provided by ParaMed reasonable does not entitle the Appellant to deduct the difference under paragraph 8(1)(h.1) when the allowance was not included in income because of subparagraph 6(1)(b)(vii.1) and there is no evidence that the allowance was not reasonable. [17] [63] According to the T2200 forms issued to the Appellant by Spectrum, the motor vehicle allowance provided to the Appellant by Spectrum was not based solely on the number of kilometers driven by the Appellant in connection with his employment by Spectrum. ...

On January 6, 1986, the collections section of Revenue Canada wrote to Giovanni Zen stating that, in connection with Pacific Refineries Inc., the corporation was indebted to the Department of National Revenue for payroll source deductions in the amount of $107,743.54 and that it was considering assessing him personally for that sum. ... It is noted in that connection that the defendant conceded in the agreed statement of facts that any information he requested of the plaintiff was provided, that he never asked for a determination of the amounts under each of the several statutes mentioned in the assessment and he did not ask for nor was he provided with copies of the corporate assessments or of the certificates filed in court. ... On March 23, 1988, a notice of assessment was sent to Giovanni Zen and Moreno Zen in connection with the 1985 taxation year assessment of Precious Metals. ...

  [9]               This calculation suggested to him that almost all the reservations for stays of 30 days or more, which constitute an exempt supply, had no connection with the franchise agreement with Marriott, and that, as a result, the appellant was not required to pay the GST on the amounts remitted to Marriott ... Assessment under section 218 of the ETA     [17]          As stated above, the assessment of $30,720.51 made in this connection is now reduced to $27,290.23 to reflect the respondent’s concession of $3,430.28 with respect to the royalties paid by the appellant to Marriott for commissions paid to travel agents on short‑term rentals ... That case involved determining the percentage of the distance driven by a taxpayer in connection with his employment under subsection 6(2) of the Income Tax Act (ITA), and he decided that 85% could be considered "all or substantially all". ...

May I find that there is a rational connection between the means chosen and the objective of the classification? ... In enacting subsection 109(1)(b) Parliament required that there be a degree of connection between the dependant and a taxpayer for the taxpayer to be permitted the deduction. To sever the connection is a function of the legislature, not the Court. [25] In the two preceding cases the judges questioned whether it was appropriate for a court to decide the constitutional validity of a Provision of the Act in the context of an appeal of a tax assessment. ...

was not reimbursed for selling-related expenses incurred in the performance of his duties; (e)     the Appellant was married to Susan Bryson (the “spouse”); (f)      the Appellant was not required by his employer to hire an assistant; (g)     the Appellant did not pay his spouse to work as an assistant; (h)     the Appellant did not incur expenses of $18,000 for an assistant for the 2004 taxation year; (i)       the Appellant claimed meal and entertainment expenses of $1,774.83 and $5,669.50 in connection with the Lone Star Texas Grill restaurant and the Empire Grill restaurant respectively; (j)      the Appellant did not incur meal and entertainment expenses of $1,774.83 and $5,669.50 to earn employment income for the 2005 taxation year; (k)    the Appellant claimed $7,830.87 as lodging expenses for hotel accommodation at the Arc Hotel in Ottawa from March to June 2005; (l)       the Appellant did not incur $7,830.87 in hotel accommodation expenses for the 2005 taxation year to earn employment income; (m)   the Appellant was reimbursed by TD Waterhouse for the following expenses: Food, beverage and entertainment expenses  $6,527 Other Expenses    5,248 Travel    2,983 Total Expenses reimbursed by TD $14,758 (n)     the Appellant did not report the reimbursed amount of $14,758 as income in his income tax return ... They import such meanings as “in relation to”, “with reference to” or “in connection with”. The phrase “in respect of” is probably the widest of any expression intended to convey some connection between two related subject matters. [13]   [42]          Parliament did not just reshape the requirement that the expenses claimed under section 62 be incurred in the course of moving, it removed the requirement entirely and replaced it with words of the widest scope of any expression intended to convey some connection between two related subject matters. ...

Since the mortgage interest rate was prime plus two or three percent, the interest rate on Hill Fai’s loan to Chun Fai would have been prime plus four or five percent. [7] The Respondent disputes that Hill Fai charged Chun Fai any interest on the loan. [15]         On top of the $450,000 loan, Hill Fai says it also transferred land to Chun Fai in 1994 and, in connection with this transfer, incurred a receivable from Chun Fai of $110,000. ... Tam testified that no loan agreements or promissory notes were prepared in connection with the debts, and therefore none could be produced in evidence. ... In my view, these financial statements alone do not provide sufficient evidence that Chun Fai owed Hill Fai $110,000 in connection with a land transfer. [40]         I am therefore not satisfied that the debt of $110,000  with respect to "Land" existed. ...

(UBS) entered into an agreement whereby Canaccord was to act exclusively as agent for UBS in connection with a proposed treasury financing for UBS for a minimum of $3,000,000 and a maximum of $6,000,000 raised (the "Offering) by way of a private placement of equity;   d)         in connection with the offering Canaccord agreed to: (1) use best efforts to structure, market and obtain commitments on mutually agreeable terms in respect of the proposed financing of the company; (2) comply with all applicable securities laws in respect of its obligations hereunder (3) advise the company as to the appropriate structure of the financing and assist with the preparation of required documentation; (4) organize meetings between representatives of the company and potential investors; and (5) assist the company in the negotiating and structuring of the final terms of the financing and assist with closing the transaction;   e)         part of the compensation Canaccord received for its services was a Compensation Option to purchase an aggregate of 10% of the Offered Securities issued or issuable at the issue price of the Offering for a period of 24 months;   f)          Canaccord allocated 742,692 UBS Compensation Options, or share purchase warrants (the UBS Warrants), or other consideration received in lieu thereof, to the Appellant on May 28, 1998;   g)         (i) on September 4, 1998 Unique Broadband Systems Inc. (UBS) issued a press release that the Vancouver Stock Exchange had approved the issuance of 2,970,767 share purchase warrants (also referred to as Compensation Options in the above paragraph) to Canaccord in connection with the acquisition of another company by UBS in September 1997 with a stock price of $0.31.               ... n)         Canaccord did not include the value of benefits in respect of warrants in the taxpayer's 1998 T4 slip;   o)         Canaccord exercised the options and immediately sold the acquired shares of UBS upon instructions from the Appellant and throughout the period commencing January 12, 2000 and ending September 26, 2000;   p)         Canaccord charged the Appellant commission on each trade which it executed upon the instructions of the Appellant in connection with the Warrants;   q)         Canaccord paid the net proceeds from the exercise of the options and the disposition of the UBS shares to the Appellant;   r)          Canaccord included the difference between the exercise price of the options and the sale price of the UBS shares as income from employment on the T4 form issued by Canaccord to the Appellant in respect of the 2000 taxation year ...

It is well known that any value added system of taxation is potentially vulnerable to abuse, and that one of the most vulnerable aspects is in connection with claims for input tax credits. ... The Appellant is entitled to the ITCs claimed. [18]     The next ITC claim rejected was in respect of $472.50 paid for GST in connection with accounting services provided by Mary Krauel, C.A. for which she billed $6,750 to Ayerswood. ... It was work in connection with a claim being pursued by Ayersworth against a supplier, but work that the Appellant was obliged to do for Ayersworth under its management agreement. ...

In the hypothetical fact situation in this case, Brazil may tax the gross bond interest income. [6] [17]         The parties disagree, however, on the meaning of the phrase “that part of the income tax…which is appropriate to" which sets the limit of the foreign tax credit that Canada will allow under Article XXII(2). [18]         The appellant maintains that the word "appropriate” in that phrase ordinarily means "specifically fitted or suitable, proper [to or for]” [7] or "especially suitable or compatible: fitting" [8]. [19]         The appellant maintains that by using these definitions, the plain meaning of the upper limit on the tax credit in Article XXII(2) is equal to the Pre-credit Tax that is especially fitted or suitable to the gross interest income which may be taxed in Brazil. [20]         The appellant goes on to say: In the case of a Canadian resident taxpayer whose only Brazil source income is interest income (that is not earned in connection with a permanent establishment of the taxpayer in Brazil) and who has other Canadian source business income, the Canadian source business income is not part of the “income which may be taxed in Brazil”. ... and that: … the amount of Canadian tax that corresponds to the gross interest income arising in Brazil is, based on the ordinary meaning of the terms used in Article XXII(2), the Canadian tax rate multiplied by such Brazilian Bond Interest. [9] (Emphasis added) [21]         The respondent, on the other hand, argues that the word “appropriate” as used in Article XXII(2) contemplates a logical connection between, or apportionment of, the Canadian income tax payable by the taxpayer on the Brazil bond income and the total Canadian income tax paid by the taxpayer on its worldwide income. [22]         The respondent points to the use of the word “correspondant” in the French version of the Treaty, used to translate “appropriate” in Article XXII(2) which The Petit Robert [10] defines as follows: CORRESPONDANT, ANTE, I. ... Qui correspond à qcch. à qqn: qui est en relation de correspondance. [24]         The Noronha’s Legal Dictionary (Portuguese-English English-Portuguese) [12] translates “correspondante” simply as the English adjective “correspondent”. [25]         The respondent maintains that Article XXII(2) requires a logical connection or correlation between “that part of the income tax” and “the income which may be taxed in Brazil.” [26]         In my view, the ordinary meaning of “appropriate” in this case is closer to the definition suggested by the respondent, and refers to a correspondence or logical connection between the part of the Canadian tax to be allowed as a credit and the Brazilian bond income. ...

The position advanced was that the similar facts were not logically relevant in determining the matter in issue in the present appeals nor was there any substantial connection between the actions of the Appellants during the period of time previously audited and the circumstances that are before the Court. [11] [25] It is generally accepted that evidence of similar facts is considered collateral and is generally inadmissible unless there is, as Bull J.A. observed in MacDonald v. ... Ltd.: [12]... a real and substantial nexus or connection between the act or allegation made, whether it be a crime or a fraud (but not, of course, limited to those), and facts relating to previous or subsequent transactions are sought to be given in evidence, then those facts have relevancy and are admissible not only to rebut a defence, such as lack of intent, accident, mens rea or the like, but to prove the fact of the act or allegations made.... ... As I have indicated, the test is relevancy and relevancy depends largely on nexus or connection of the other transactions with the ones in issue- and a strong connection can well be admissible as relevant to the fact of the actus reus.... [26] The question of the admissibility of similar fact evidence was also dealt with by McIntyre J. in Sweitzer v. ...