Search - connection

Kassawat could render services to Telus, such as the cell phone, printers, Internet connection, etc. ...

It also does not apply to a claimant seeking financial compensation in connection with allegations of unlawful or wrongful acts by an employer [27] nor to protect the right to employment or a right to earn income [28]. ...

More importantly, the Court concluded that the directors in Canada “attended to business and legal affairs of the company which were required in connection with and were essential to the company’s business venture of owning and operating vessels.” [38]   It is clear that the Court in Bedford, was convinced on the basis of the evidence before it that the de jure directors residing in Canada exercised effective management and control and that there was no reason to derogate from the basic proposition that directors are deemed to assume that role. [39]   In the more recent UK decision of Wood v. ...

When interpreting the definition of “ office ” under the CPP, examining jurisprudence on the definition of “office” under the Act is relevant. [41]   In Blanchard, the Federal Court of Appeal determined that only the smallest connection to employment is required to trigger the operation of the section. [2] [42]   The Federal Court of Appeal in McGoldrick v Canada cited the following passage from the Supreme Court of Canada found in The Queen v Savage, [3] As a general rule, any material acquisition in respect of employment which confers an economic benefit on a taxpayer and does not constitute an exemption falls within paragraph 6(1)(a). [43]   While I partially accept the Crown’s argument that some benefits were conferred upon Mr. ...

Bantrel also paid the $40,000-odd for RM’s licensure for use of specialized software on the Bantrel computer he was given to use. [18]   On the basis of the foregoing I conclude that the ownership of tools factor favours RM being considered an employee of Bantrel, with income paid through Bantrel’s agent DGS. [19]   The next factor for consideration is whether or not RM hires his own helpers in connection with his Bantrel work. ...

A-8) Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) advised AS Inc. that CRA had information that AS Inc. had received incentives from generic pharmaceutical manufacturers and that as they were received in connection with a business undertaking, these receipts were reportable as business income, regardless of payment format. ...

They do not agree on whether it was a taxable or an exempt supply. [32]   Indeed, the issue before the Court is whether CanLII is entitled, pursuant to subsection 169(1) of the ETA, to claim ITCs in respect of the GST it paid to the third-party service providers. [33]   Subsection 169(1) reads as follows: Input Tax Credits General rule for credits 169 (1) Subject to this Part, where a person acquires or imports property or a service or brings it into a participating province and, during a reporting period of the person during which the person is a registrant, tax in respect of the supply, importation or bringing in becomes payable by the person or is paid by the person without having become payable, the amount determined by the following formula is an input tax credit of the person in respect of the property or service for the period: A × B where A is the tax in respect of the supply, importation or bringing in, as the case may be, that becomes payable by the person during the reporting period or that is paid by the person during the period without having become payable; and B is (a) where the tax is deemed under subsection 202(4) to have been paid in respect of the property on the last day of a taxation year of the person, the extent (expressed as a percentage of the total use of the property in the course of commercial activities and businesses of the person during that taxation year) to which the person used the property in the course of commercial activities of the person during that taxation year, (b) where the property or service is acquired, imported or brought into the province, as the case may be, by the person for use in improving capital property of the person, the extent (expressed as a percentage) to which the person was using the capital property in the course of commercial activities of the person immediately after the capital property or a portion thereof was last acquired or imported by the person, and (c) in any other case, the extent (expressed as a percentage) to which the person acquired or imported the property or service or brought it into the participating province, as the case may be, for consumption, use or supply in the course of commercial activities of the person. [34]   Therefore, CanLII will be entitled to ITCs if it acquired property or a service for consumption, use or supply in the course of its commercial activities. [35]   Commercial activity is defined in subsection 123(1) as follows: 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. [36]   In the present case, the respondent argues that by virtue of section 10 of Part VI of Schedule V of the ETA (which section is reproduced above in paragraph 3 of my Reasons) CanLII’s business involved the making of exempt supplies. [37]   The respondent is of the view that all or substantially all the services supplied by CanLII were supplies made for no consideration. [38]   In the respondent’s oral argument, counsel stated that the Federation made discretionary payments that did not fall within the definition of “consideration”, as they were not made pursuant to a legal obligation. ...

The provisions of these two paragraphs are as follows: 18(1)   General limitations – In computing the income of a taxpayer from a business or property no deduction shall be made in respect of (a)   general limitation – an outlay, loss 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)   … … (h) personal and living expenses – personal or living expenses of the taxpayer, other than travel expenses incurred by the taxpayer   while away from home in the course of carrying on the taxpayer’s business; [22]   Section 248 of the Act defines “personal or living expenses” as follows: 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 common-law partnership or adoption, and not maintained in connection with a business carried on for profit or with a reasonable expectation of profit, [23]     In addition, under section 67 of the Act, a taxpayer may not deduct an “unreasonable”expense, even if the expense is otherwise deductible under the Act. ...

Victus Academy paid the City for the use of the facilities, its teachers, and the two third party businesses that provided services in connection with the school day hockey program. ...

They were directors in law only because of their family connection to Eugene Fitzgerald. ...