Search - connection

No evidence whatsoever was adduced in connection with the date or the nature of the investment ...

[3]      In making the assessments, assessing the penalties, and confirming them all, for the 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxation years, the Minister of National Revenue ("the Minister") relied on the following assumptions of fact:                 [TRANSLATION]   (a)  At all relevant times, the Appellant operated in an equal partnership with another person a taxi business with three cars;   (b)  The Appellant reported low total income during the 2000 ($13,346.00), 2001 ($15,384.00) and 2002 ($12,929.00) taxation years;   (c)  The Appellant's spouse also reported low income during the 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxation years, that income being essentially from part-time employment;   (d)  The internal control of the business operated at all relevant times by the Appellant was inadequate;   (e)  The Appellant had little involvement in the administration of the business;   (f)   The Appellant nonetheless was aware of the revenue generated and expenses incurred in connection with the three taxi vehicles operated by the business;   (g)  In computing his personal income, the Appellant did not report tips in the amount of $3,500 per year for the 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxation years;   (h)  The Appellant received a gift of $3,000 from his mother-in-law during the 2000 taxation year that he used to purchase his share of the business;   (i)   The income reported by the Appellant during the 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxation years did not explain the assets he held at all relevant times;   (j)   The Appellant's income did not explain either his cost of living during the 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxation years;   (k)  The audit of the Appellant used the indirect audit method of calculating the difference in net worth for the 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxation years, given the lack of adequate supporting documents; see, as if quoted here in full:  -     Appendix A: "Calculation of difference in net worth – For tax purposes" (re: 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxation years);   (l)   The resulting differences between the previous total income reported by the Appellant for each of the three taxation years 2000, 2001 and 2002 and the revised total income for those three taxation years, namely $14,330.57 for 2000, $35,435.73  for 2001 and $33,247.21  for 2002, from which differences were deducted, in the audit, additional depreciation amounts of $1,950.00 ($14,330.57- $1,950.00 = $12,381.00), $1,670.00 ($35,435.73 - $1,670.00 = $33,766.00) and $1,272.00 ($33,247.00 - $1,272.00 = $31,975.00) respectively, were  validated by analyzing deposits into the bank accounts belonging to the Appellant and his spouse and by a third-party confirmation of the income earned by the Appellant; see Appendices B to J referred to as if quoted here in full:  -     Appendix B: "Personal balance sheet at December 31" for the Appellant (re: 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxation years);  -     Appendix C:            "Business balance sheet/business's fiscal year at December 31" (re: 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxation years);  -     Appendix D: "Caisse populaire and Banks" (re: 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxation years);  -     Appendix E:            "List of accounts receivable" (re: 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxation years);  -     Appendix F: "Summary of capital assets" (re: 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxation years);  -     Appendix G:            "Investments" (re: 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxation years);  -     Appendix H: "List of accounts payable" (re: 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxation years);  -     Appendix I:             "Loans and Mortgages" (re: 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxation years);  -     Appendix J: "Auditor's Report" (re: 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxation years) ...

the employment is in connection with the selling or negotiating of contracts; b.                  ...

Flowers filed a Notice of Intervention but he did not appear at the hearing nor was there any explanation of his connection to this matter. ...

The same provision gives the following definition of commercial activity:   "commercial activity" of a person means: (a) a business carried on by the person (other than a business carried on without a reasonable expectation of profit by an individual, a personal trust or a partnership, all of the members of which are individuals), except to the extent to which the business involves the making of exempt supplies by the person, (b) an adventure or concern of the person in the nature of trade (other than an adventure or concern engaged in without a reasonable expectation of profit by an individual, a personal trust or a partnership, all of the members of which are individuals), except to the extent to which the adventure or concern involves the making of exempt supplies by the person, and (c) the making of a supply (other than an exempt supply) by the person of real property of the person, including anything done by the person in the course of or in connection with the making of the supply ...

In connection with “ distinguishing the cases,” I am reminded of the following comment made by Justice Evans in The Attorney General of Canada v. ...

There was a $3 charge which the carrier pays in his or her early months of work to create what is called a bond, which is really a security bond of $400 held in trust by the paper for the carrier, so that when the connection with the paper terminates, it can be applied, if necessary, to pay any amount owing to the paper by the carrier.  ...

Henderson I have concluded that 50% of the expenses in connection with the trip to Fort Nelson, British Columbia should be allowed as business expenses. ...

It reads:     (4) Notwithstanding subsections (1), (2) and (3), where a person has received or obtained a benefit payment to which that person is not entitled or a benefit payment in excess of the amount of the benefit payment to which that person is entitled and the Minister is satisfied that   (a) the amount or excess of the benefit payment cannot be collected within the reasonably foreseeable future, (b) the administrative costs of collecting the amount or excess of the benefit payment are likely to equal or exceed the amount to be collected, (c) repayment of the amount or excess of the benefit payment would cause undue hardship to the debtor, or (d) the amount or excess of the benefit payment is the result of erroneous advice or administrative error in the administration of this Act,   the Minister may, unless that person has been convicted of an offence under any provision of this Act or of the Criminal Code in connection with the obtaining of the benefit payment, remit all or any portion of the amount or excess of the benefit payment ...

  [25]     With respect to the amount claimed for cable TV, the Appellant failed to establish the necessary connection between the use of the Cable TV and his business. ...