Search - connection

Andersen in 2003. [2]      The main question is whether the income received in connection with the share transaction is employment income or business income and in either case the amount of the income that is attributable to the transaction. [3]      The CRA treated the income as employment income and allowed the deduction permitted under para. 110(1)(d) for one-half of the benefit. As for the amount of the income, the CRA issued the assessment on the basis of the amount reported by Kenrich in a T4 issued in connection with the share transaction. ...

To secure the loan a mortgage was registered against the Property. [3]      During the 1998 and 1999 taxation years the Property was the principal residence of the Appellant and the Joint Owners. [4]      The Appellant claimed that he suffered rental losses in connection with the Property. ... (b)       Did the Appellant incur any expenses in connection with the Property?            ...

The Appellant said that he would usually commute to Celista every 10 days, stay in Celista with his wife and children for four days and then return to the in-law's house in Langley. [12]     The Appellant incurred moving expenses in the amount of $4,547.00 in 1997 in connection with the move of his family to Celista. [13]     When the Appellant filed his income tax return for the 2001 taxation year he deducted moving expenses in the amount of $4,547.00. [14]     The Appellant's wife incurred moving expenses in the amount of $13,891.00 in 1997. ... ANALYSIS: [16]     Subsection 62(1) of the Income Tax Act (the " Act ") permits a taxpayer who moves from one residence in Canada to another residence in Canada to deduct certain moving expenses if the move is made in connection with the commencement of a business or employment at a particular location in Canada. ...

" [3]      From the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, the following sets out the Respondent's position: "In so reassessing the Appellant, the Minister made the following assumptions of fact: a)          in connection with the commencement of a (sic) employment, on August 24, 1995, the Appellant moved from Ottawa to Toronto; b)          the Minister disallowed, among others, the following amounts as moving expenses:             i)           transporting furniture                                          $748             ii)          transporting a piano                                           $250             iii)          rent (York University)                            $300 c)          the Minister disallowed the amounts of $748 and $250 because the receipts submitted supporting the said expenses were not containing pertinent information, as what kind of services were rendered and who performed it; d)          the expenses for rent were disallowed because no receipt has been submitted by the Appellant. ... Apparently, for some lengthy time thereafter, he had no employment as such and the testimony does not indicate that he ever did get such employment. [6]      I have reviewed the relevant case law- as I see it, thinking there might have been some moderation or clarification in recent jurisprudence, which would permit the Respondent to use the phrase from the Reply to the Notice of Appeal (supra): "in connection with the commencement of a (sic) employment, on August 24, 1995, the Appellant moved from Ottawa to Toronto;" I was unable to find any. [7]      In my view this Appellant has failed to meet the basic requirement under section 62 of the Act, irrespective of the propriety of the receipts for which he has claimed a deduction. ...

The issue in both cases is the deductibility in computing income of losses incurred by them in connection with the rental of property at 53 Bankview Circle, Rexdale, Ontario. ... All of these losses arose in connection with the rental of a portion of their principal residence, specifically a basement apartment. ...

In this connection, I would like to refer to an excerpt from the judgment of Justice Décary speaking for the Federal Court of Appeal in the case of Vaillancourt v. ... The link or connection with the assessing policy of the Minister of National Revenue is just too remote. ...

., said: In enacting subparagraph 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. ...

As consideration for past consulting services rendered by Kirsh to Bun King in connection with the establishment of the business, the operations of its premises, the formulation of merchandising techniques and systems and other promotional techniques, and the training of employees involved in the business, Bun King hereby covenants and agrees with Kirsh: (a) to pay to Kirsh the sum of $1,300.00 on the first day of each and every month from January 1, 1981 and then on the first day of each and every month thereafter without termination during Kirsh's lifetime. ... Kirsh's able counsel in Court, since it was filed earlier by his accountants in connection with efforts to resolve the matter at the objection stage but it is an interesting viewpoint:... we submit that it is unrealistic to accept the agreement at face value and suggest that to characterize the payments as remuneration for past services from April to November is not in keeping with the economic reality of the situation. ...

Counsel did agree that in Buonincontri, supra, the subject property had been an apartment building from which it might be easier for the Court to see the clear rental connection. ... There is no basis in either the legislation or the case law of which I am aware which would permit the amounts received by these appellants from the corporation, in connection with the corporation's use of assets belonging to these appellants, to be characterized as anything other than rent. ...

The suggestion was made that the payments might have been in connection with the “general release” or “restrictive covenants” clauses of the agreement, but there is no basis for such a contention — albeit that different terminology in the agreement might have produced that result. ... If these appellants have cause for complaint, that complaint might be more appropriately directed at Terra-Flex or Mr Agassiz in connection with the interpre- tation and implementation of the agreement, but there is no cause for complaint against the Minister of National Revenue for taxing the amounts as dictated by the action of Terra-Flex. ...