Search - connection

I, has this to say at page 59 in connection with the case of Internal Revenue Commissioners v. ... Justice Dickson said at 5045: The phrase “in respect of" is probably the widest of any expression intended to convey some connection between two related subject matters. ...

They read as follows: 4. (1) For the purposes of this Act, (a) a taxpayer’s income or loss for the taxation year from an office, employment, business, property or other source, or from sources in a particular place, is the taxpayer’s income or loss, as the case may be, computed in accordance with this Act on the assumption that he had during the taxation year no income or loss except from that source or no income or loss except from those sources, as the case may be, and was allowed no deductions in computing his income for the taxation year except such deductions as may reasonably be regarded as wholly applicable to that source or to those sources, as the case may be, and except such part of any other deductions as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto; 9. (1) Subject to this Part, a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from a business or property is his profit therefrom for the year. 9. (2) Subject to section 31, a taxpayer’s loss for a taxation year from a business or property is the amount of his loss, if any, for the taxation year from that source computed by applying the provisions of this Act respecting computation of income from that source mutatis mutandis. 18. (1) In computing the income of a taxpayer from a business or property no deduction shall be made in respect of (a) an outlay or expense except to the extent that it was made or incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income from the business or property; (b) an outlay, loss or replacement of capital, a payment on account of capital or an allowance in respect of depreciation, obsolescence or depletion except as expressly permitted by this Part; (h) personal or living expenses of the taxpayer except travelling expenses (including the entire amount expended for meals and lodging) incurred by the taxpayer while away from home in the course of carrying on his business; 248. (1) In this Act, “personal or living expenses” includes (a) the expenses of properties maintained by any person for the use or benefit of the taxpayer or any person connected with the taxpayer by blood relationship, marriage or adoption, and not maintained in connection with a business carried on for profit or with a reasonable expectation of profit,... 4.02 Cases at law The cases at law that were referred to the Court are: 1. ... See also s 139(l)(ae) of the Income Tax Act which includes as “personal and living expenses’’ and therefore not deductible for tax purposes, the expenses of properties maintained by the taxpayer for his own use and benefit, and not maintained in connection with a business carried on for profit or with a reasonable expectation of profit. ...

I would add, however, that the footnote provided by the Court in connection with the above quotation is equally important: While I need not express any final opinion thereon, I am not persuaded by the appellant’s argument that the acquisition of an asset ripe to produce income must be classified for present purposes as being either (a) an acquisition for purposes of holding it as an income-producing asset, or (b) an acquisition for re-sale in the nature of trade (even though it may involve incidental receipt of profit therefrom between acquisition and sale). ... In this connection, I see no difference between acquiring a profit-producing property and a capital asset for a business. ...

Elizabeth Ann Hooker, on October 30, 1973, signed an offer to purchase real estate in connection with the balance of the land, namely lots 24, 26 and 27 on Wilkes Avenue, and this was handled through W Lamb Realty Limited. ... He was asked whether he remembered talking to representatives of Revenue Canada, in May 1979, in connection with the sale of the perimeter property. ...

The Minister assessed on the assumptions that the disallowed legal expenses were not incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property in accordance with paragraph 18(l)(a) of the Income Tax Act (“Act”) and were not incurred in connection with the appellant’s dry wall business in the normal course of its income earning activities. ... Instead, she was rejecting both the need for a causal connection between a particular expenditure and a particular receipt, and the suggestion that a receipt must arise in the same year as an expenditure is incurred. ...

First, the assumption that the taxpayer “had no reasonable expectation of profit” has sometimes been viewed as an implied if not an express reference to the definition of “personal or living expenses” found in subsection 248(1) of the Act where such expenses are precisely defined as including: (a) the expenses of properties maintained by any person for the use or benefit of the taxpayer or any person connected with the taxpayer by blood relationship, marriage or adoption, and not maintained in connection with a business carried on for profit or with a reasonable expectation of profit. ... The second example relates to the use of the van in connection with the sales activities. ...

In so reassessing the Appellant, the Minister made the following assumptions of fact: (a) in 1988, the Appellant and his spouse started an oriental giftware business in equal (%o) partnership under the name ‘Classic Arts & Collectibles’ (the ‘Business’); (b) in 1988, the Appellant leased a store at 734 Queen Street, East, Toronto to operate the Business; (c) the Appellant and his spouse reported gross income of $7,553.04, $3,724.73 and $1,328.34 and gross profit (excess of income over cost of goods sold) of $3,236.94, $1,510.97 and $371.23 in the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years respectively, arising out of the Business carried on by them; (d) the Appellant and his spouse reported expenses of $27,760.83, $21,709.88 and $18,948.88 in the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years, resulting in business losses of $24,523.89, $20,198.91 and $18,577.65 in the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years, of which the Appellant re- ported 81% or $19,921.98, 90% or $18,179.02 and 90% or $16,719.89 in the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years respectively; (e) in reassessing the Appellant for the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years, the Minister reduced the net loss from the Business to the amounts of $17,366.00, $14,939.00 and nil respectively, and allocated 50% or $8,683.00, $7,469.50 and nil respectively to the Appellant and the remaining 50% of the loss from the Business to the Appellant’s spouse; (f) at all material times, the Appellant was in full time employment with Ontario Hydro; (g) the lease for the Queen Street store expired in November 1993 and the Appellant moved the inventory stock to the basement of his residence; (h) after the expiry of the lease for the store, the Appellant did not operate the Business with a reasonable expectation of profit; (i) the Appellant has failed to produce adequate receipts, invoices or other records to support the expenses incurred during the operation of the Business; (j) the Appellant claimed his share of the Business losses in other years as follows: YEAR % LOSSES 1988 50 $21,527.00 1989 50 $19,963.00 1990 50 $18,962.00 199] 50 $28,045.00 1995 50 $ 4,642.00 (k) expenses in excess of the amounts allowed by the Minister were not made or incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property; (l) the disallowed expenses were personal or living expenses of the Appellant; (m) the business expenses reported by the Appellant and his spouse for the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years, included automobile expenses including capital cost allowance in the amounts of $6,692.71, $7,274.81 and $3,270.11, respectively; (n) for the 1992 and 1993 taxation years, the Minister allowed 20% of the automobile expenses claimed including capital cost allowance in the amounts of $1,207.00 and $1,406.00 respectively; (o) the balance of disallowed automobile expenses in the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years represents the Appellant’s personal use portion; (p) the Appellant did not maintain a proper log book in connection with the business use of the automobile. ... (h) the Appellant has failed to produce adequate receipts, invoices or other records to support the expenses incurred during the operation of the Business; (i) the Appellant claimed her share of the Business losses in other years as follows: YEAR % LOSSES 1988 50 $21,527.00 1989 50 $19,963.00 1990 50 $18,962.00 1991 22 $ 7,681.00 1995 10 $ 515.00 (j) expenses in excess of the amounts allowed by the Minister were not made or incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property; (k) the disallowed expenses were personal or living expenses of the Appellant; (l) the business expenses reported by the Appellant and her spouse for the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years, included automobile expenses including capital cost allowance in the amounts of $6,692.71, $7,274.81 and $3,270.11, respectively; (m) for the 1992 and 1993 taxation years, the Minister allowed 20% of the automobile expenses claimed including capital cost allowance in the amounts of $1,207.00 and $1,406.00 respectively; (n) the balance of disallowed automobile expenses in the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years represents the Appellant’s personal use portion; (o) the Appellant did not maintain a proper log book in connection with the business use of the automobile. ...

All amounts of interest paid by FCICL to the Toronto-Dominion Bank with respect to money borrowed in connection with the Appellant’s issue of shares to the public. ... All loan arrangement fees paid by FCICL to the Toronto-Dominion Bank with respect to money borrowed in connection with the Appellant’s issue of shares to the public. 3. ...

We had gone to a what they call a Million Dollar Forum class and we had developed some connections in there. ... And that’s how I come to get the different connections all of a sudden. ...

Firstly, a prize received in connection with an office or employment is taxable in accordance with the provisions contained in ss. 5 to 8 of the Act, dealing specifically with income or loss from an office or employment. ... There must be a connection between the ordinary field of endeavour, the achievement and the awarding of the prize. ...