Search - connection

Allowable motor vehicle expenses (line 14 minus line 15) 3,813.94 Enter the amount from line 16 on line 1 in the "Expenses" area above. [7] For 1994 no Statement of Employment Expenses was submitted but it is acknowledged that the amount of the expenses claimed was $15,121. [8] In each of the years the employer furnished form T-2200 as required by paragraph 8(10) of the Act in connection with a claim for deduction of employment expenses. ... These conditions are the following: (1) The taxpayer must be employed in the taxation year in connection with the selling of property or negotiating of contracts for his employer. (2) The taxpayer must be required under the contract of employment to pay his own expenses. (3) The taxpayer must be ordinarily required to carry on duties away from the employer's place of business. (4) The taxpayer must be remunerated in whole or in part by commission or other similar amounts fixed by reference to the volume of sales made or the contracts negotiated. (5) The amounts claimed may not exceed the commission or other similar amounts received by him in the year. (6) The taxpayer must not be in receipt of a travelling allowance from his employer in respect of a period when the taxpayer was employed in connection with the selling of property or negotiation of contracts which is excluded from income under subparagraph 6(1)(b)(v). (7) After 1990, the amount must not present a payment made by the taxpayer that resulted in a reduction in the amount of the standby charge required to be included in computing the taxpayer's income for the year. [13] I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence that the Appellant does meet the conditions set forth in paragraph 8(1)(f). [14] I face two difficulties however. ...

This he learned through discussions with Elvio Del Zotto, William Christie and Robert Lindsay, a tax lawyer with the firm Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, who was retained in connection with the investigation. ... He must establish the connection between the expenditures and the purpose of such expenditures. [22] The beginning of the investigation in 1990 and the physical presence of Revenue Canada auditors on Tridel’s premises pointed to Tridel being under scrutiny. ... It has long been held that the deduction of legal fees are allowable when they are incurred in connection with the ongoing business of the Appellant, which is the case in this appeal. [25] As to the argument whether or not the expenditures were of capital nature, they were not. ...

(“WS Hein”), in US dollars in the amount of US$11,745, which the appellant computed to CDN$13,320 using the annual average conversion rate for 2006;   t)          the appellant purported to have received in a year(s) prior to 2003 fee income of US$11,745 from WS Hein, a client of Jonah Publications, and to have refunded such amount to WS Hein in 2006 for services not rendered;   u)         the amount of US$11,745 or any Canadian dollar equivalent had not been included in the appellant’s income for the 2006 taxation year or any preceding taxation year;   v)         the purported outlay of US$11,745 to WS Hein was not made by the appellant in the 2006 taxation year;   w)        the purported outlay of US$11,745 (CND$13,320), if made, was not made in connection to the Partnership or a business or profession from which income was subject to tax in Canada; and   x)         the purported outlay of US$11,745 (CDN$13,320), if made, was not made or incurred for the purpose of earning business income related to the Partnership or any other business endeavours of the appellant in the 2006 taxation year ... The repayment obligation was in connection with a transaction predating 2003. ... The only connection, if any, I could see between the repayment and the royalty, is that the repayment can be considered to have been made to preserve or protect a capital asset or a source of income of the appellant. ...

[11]   These two subparagraphs provide as follow: 6(1)(b)(vii.1) reasonable allowances for the use of a motor vehicle received by an employee (other than an employee employed in connection with the selling of property or the negotiating of contracts for the employer) from the employer for travelling in the performance of the duties of the office or employment, … 6(1)(b)(x) where the measurement of the use of the vehicle for the purpose of the allowance is not based solely on the number of kilometres for which the vehicle is used in connection with or in the course of the office or employment, [12]   These provisions make clear that vehicular allowances are not excludable from income unless the allowance amount is, “based solely on the number of kilometres for which the vehicle is used in connection with or in the course of the…employment.” [13]   In this case however the $9,100 amount was an amount calculated on the basis of an average of number of snow runs in total, divided evenly between the brothers. ...

The reply to notice of appeal pointed out: — at all material times, the Appellant was employed full-time as a teacher; — during the material period, the Appellant carried on automobile restoration activities under the name and style of Speck & Sons Restoration and Custom Shop ("Speck & Sons"); — in the 1982, 1983 and 1984 taxation years, the Appellant declared the following income and expenses from Speck & Sons: Year Income Expenses Business Loss 1982 $ 345.31 $3,684.22 $3,388.91 1982 $ 613.26 $4,651.35 $4,038.09 1984 $1,060.97 $4,651.06 $3,590.09 — the expenses incurred in connection with Speck & Sons were not incurred in connection with a business carried on for profit or with a reasonable expectation of profit; and — the expenses incurred in connection with Speck & Sons were personal or living expenses within the meaning of paragraph 18(1)(h) of the Income Tax Act. ...

In contrast, the respondent relied, inter alia, on paragraphs 18(l)(a) and 18(l)(h), subsection 248(1) and sections 31 and 67 of the Income Tax Act, SC 1970-71-72, c 63 as amended, (“the Act”) and noted: — The appellant, during the taxation years under appeal was a full time employee of Canada Manpower; — the appellant, during the taxation years under appeal lived on the farm; — the sole revenue produced by the farm arises from the production of maple syrup and the rental of approximately one-half of the farm acreage; — during the taxation years under appeal, the appellant used less than one-fifth of the available maple trees to produce maple syrup; — the expenses the asppellant incurred with respect to the farm were not made for the purpose of gaining or producing income; — the farm property was not maintained in connection with a business carried on for profit or with a reasonable expectation of profit. ... Nevertheless, subsection 248(1) of the Act leaves the Minister no choice but to so describe such expenses: 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, I am quite sure it is difficult for a taxpayer to accept that an amount such as “Horse Ration & Sundry — $150.52” (above) has much to do with “personal or living expenses”, but the critical point is that if it does not have to do with “reasonable expectation of profit”, then there is no alternate description or definition available to the Minister. ... The only point which must be determined therefore is that referenced in the quotation from the reply to notice of appeal (above): — the farm property was not maintained in connection with a business carried on for profit or with a reasonable expectation of profit. ...

The Appellant respectfully submits that, inasmuch as its chief source of income for the 1977 taxation year was a combination of thoroughbred horse breeding and racing and the provision of building supplies, section 31 of the Income Tax Act did not operate to constrain the taxpayer from deducting the loss that it sustained in connection with thoroughbred horse breeding and racing in the said year. ... There is a connection and the connection that does exist on the evidence has relevance as I mentioned earlier, that the expenses incurred in the horse-racing activity can properly be viewed as an expense incurred in the course and for the purpose of earning income from the business, however that business may be characterized. ...

This he learned through discussions with Elvio Del Zotto, William Christie and Robert Lindsay, a tax lawyer with the firm Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, who was retained in connection with the investigation. ... He must establish the connection between the expenditures and the purpose of such expenditures. ... It has long been held that the deduction of legal fees are allowable when they are incurred in connection with the ongoing business of the Appellant, which is the case in this appeal. ...

In computing his income pursuant to section 3 of the Income Tax Act (the Act) for the taxation years 1992, 1993, and 1994, he claimed to be entitled to take into account certain losses which he claimed to have incurred in connection with activities carried on by him which he regarded as being the practice of a profession, and therefore a business. [1] The Minister of National Revenue (the Minister) in assessing him took the position that the Appellant had no reasonable expectation of producing a profit from these activities, and that they therefore did not constitute a business, with the result that the losses were not available to be deducted. ... Between 1988 and 1995, he published two articles on computer-related subjects, and he prepared materials for a number of computer training courses and workshops in connection with his work at Brock University. ... Schedule B to the Reply to the Notice of Appeal summarizes the gross income and the net losses claimed by the Appellant in connection with his professional writing between the years 1978 and 1995. ...

He testified that he did advertising and, indeed, in connection with his business, I do not regard $425 as a particularly unreasonable amount. ... Delivery and freight, $325 is a proper expense in connection with his business. ... That would be in connection with the entertainment. That should be allowed. ...