Search - connection

The case dealt with whether an order allowing commission evidence should be granted in connection with Swiss nationals resident in Switzerland and charged with criminal offences in Canada. ...

[Emphasis added.] [38] The above statutory provision (particularly the emphasized phrases) makes it clear that, in determining whether the provision applies to an agreement among partners to share any income, loss or other amount in a specified proportion, it is appropriate to consider all the circumstances, including the reason or reasons for the agreement, as well as considering the proportions in which the partners have agreed to share other profits and losses of the partnership. [39] The phrase all the circumstances is sufficiently broad, so as to encompass other agreements and transactions that have a connection to the agreement pursuant to which any income, loss or other amount is shared among partners. [40] The most current and important meaning of the word reason given by The Canadian Oxford Compact Dictionary is “a motive, cause or justification.” [10] Thus, questions asking about the reason or motive for entering into a particular agreement could come within the purview of subsection 103(1) of the Act. [41] While many of the Disputed Questions ask for the Appellant’s reason for entering into a particular Transaction or for drafting an agreement in a particular manner, other Disputed Questions ask about the purpose of a particular Transaction or aspect of the Reorganization. ...

For instance, the expression “place of business” (which is not defined in the Income Tax Act [48] (ITA) either) is used in paragraph 20(1)(ee) of the ITA, which authorizes a deduction of the connection costs of public utilities at a place of business. ...

The Minister’s Assumptions of Fact [3] In determining the Appellant’s liability pursuant to subsection 160(1) of the ITA, the Minister made the following assumptions of fact: a) On January 8, 1993, Charles Csak transferred [a property located at 7286 Tenth Line, Mississauga, Ontario (the “Property”)] [3] to the Appellant; b) The Appellant and Charles Csak were married as at [January 8, 1993]; c) No consideration passed from the Appellant to Charles Csak in connection with the transfer of the Property as the transfer was for “natural love and affection”; d) The fair market value of the Property as at [January 8, 1993] was $1,200,000; e) Charles Csak died on or about March 9, 2002; f) After the death of Charles Csak, the Appellant was executrix and/or trustee of his estate; g) As at August 14, 2012, the Estate of the Late Charles Csak’s unpaid tax liability under the [Income Tax Act], Income Tax Act (Ontario), including interest, in respect of taxation years prior to [January 8, 1993], was as follows; [4] The Underlying Assessments h) Charles Csak was reassessed for the 1988, 1989, 1990 taxation years on April 21, 1994; and reassessed for the 1991 taxation year on August 15, 1994 (the “Underlying Assessments”); i) The Underlying Assessments concerned partnership losses claimed by Charles Csak which were disallowed by the Minister; j) In 1996, Charles Csak, along with other persons involved in the same partnership(s), filed an appeal in the Tax Court of Canada from the Underlying Assessments; k) The Appellant as executrix and/or trustee of Charles Csak’s estate pursued and directed the appeal to the Tax Court of Canada following his death; l) [Withdrawn by counsel for the Respondent at the hearing of the appeal]; m) The Appellant was a beneficiary of the Estate of the Late Charles Csak; n) On July 13, 2006, Chief Justice Bowman of [sic] Tax Court of Canada issued judgment dismissing the Estate of the Late Charles Csak’s appeal of the Underlying Assessments; o) The tax liability of the Estate of the Late Charles Csak of $4,876,825 remains outstanding; The Waivers p) Charles Csak executed a waiver of the normal reassessment period for the 1988 taxation year on September 10, 1992, which was mailed to the Minister on September 11, 1992, and received on September 14, 1992; and q) Charles Csak executed a waiver of the normal reassessment period for the 1989 taxation year on May 27, 1993, which was mailed to the Minister on May 27, 1993, and received on May 31, 1993. [5] B. ...

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. [91]         Business is defined in subsection 123(1) as follows: “business” includes a profession, calling, trade, manufacture or undertaking of any kind whatever, whether the activity or undertaking is engaged in for profit, and any activity engaged in on a regular or continuous basis that involves the supply of property by way of lease, licence or similar arrangement, but does not include an office or employment. [92]         Under the GST Act, a person’s business is broader than the person’s commercial activity. ...

In the statement of claim, $155,000,000 was claimed as damages for alleged breaches of acquisition agreements as follows: damages of $50 million for breach of warranty in respect of the Software and breach of covenant to provide certain services in connection with, among other things, "the support, training, maintenance, development, enhancement and promotion of the [Software]", damages of $50 million "for breach of certain collateral agreements", damages of $50 million for "fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation", as well as exemplary and punitive damages of $5 million. ... Apart from a clear decision to pursue a criminal investigation, no one factor is necessarily determinative in and of itself, but courts must assess the totality of the circumstances, and make a determination as to whether the inquiry or question in issue engages the adversarial relationship between the state and the individual 94         In this connection, the trial judge will look at all factors, including but not limited to such questions as: (a)         Did the authorities have reasonable grounds to lay charges? ...

Identity of issue may therefore compensate for the lack of physical identity of object where the close connection that links the two proceedings to each other is such that the judge deciding the issue the first time was able to anticipate the consequence in respect of which it is raised a second time. [80]     Since the object of a decision is the recognition of a right, it is normal that the scope of "the authority of a final judgment" can be determined by consulting the judgment itself. ... A professional liability suit was brought against the appellant, a notary, in connection with a legal opinion given to the respondents. ...

"tax shelter" means any property (including, for greater certainty, any right to income) in respect of which it can reasonably be considered, having regard to statements or representations made or proposed to be made in connection with the property, that, i f a person were to acquire an interest in the property, at the end of a particular taxation year that ends within 4 years after the date on which the interest is acquired,      (a)        the total of all amounts each of which is   (i)  an amount, or a loss in the case of a partnership interest, represented to be deductible in computing income in respect of the interest in the property (including, where the property is a right to income, an amount or loss in respect of that right that is represented to be deductible) and expected to be incurred by or allocated to the person for that particular taxation year, or   (ii)  any other amount represented to be deductible in computing income or taxable income in respect of the interest in the property and expected to be incurred by or allocated to the person for the particular year or any preceding taxation year, other than any amount included in computing a loss described in subparagraph (i),   would equal or exceed   (b)        the amount, if any, by which   (i) the cost to the person of the interest in the property at the end of the taxation year,   would exceed   (ii) the total of all amounts each of which is the amount of any prescribed benefit that is expected to be received or enjoyed directly or indirectly in respect of the interest in the property, by the person or another person with whom the person does not deal at arm's length  ...   ... The language that was used, the numerous descriptions, and certain connections with communications giants suggested that there might be some embryonic research, but the numerous inconsistencies and the explanations that were outlandish, to say the least, certainly do not support a finding that Télématique was engaged in serious SR&ED work. ...

Gut stated that Gerbro's characterization likely mirrored words used in the Funds' offering memoranda and that she understood “portfolio investment” to mean a group of investments. [58] 3        APPLICABLE LAW [60]         Section 94.1 of the ITA is the applicable provision in the case at bar, and it reads as follows: 94.1(1) If in a taxation year a taxpayer holds or has an interest in property (referred to in this section as an “offshore investment fund property”) (a) that is a share of the capital stock of, an interest in, or a debt of, a non-resident entity (other than a controlled foreign affiliate of the taxpayer or a prescribed non-resident entity) or an interest in or a right or option to acquire such a share, interest or debt, and (b) that may reasonably be considered to derive its value, directly or indirectly, primarily from portfolio investments of that or any other non-resident entity in (i) shares of the capital stock of one or more corporations, (ii) indebtedness or annuities, (iii) interests in one or more corporations, trusts, partnerships, organizations, funds or entities, (iv) commodities, (v) real estate, (vi) Canadian or foreign resource properties, (vii) currency of a country other than Canada, (viii) rights or options to acquire or dispose of any of the foregoing, or (ix) any combination of the foregoing, and it may reasonably be concluded, having regard to all the circumstances, including (c) the nature, organization and operation of any non-resident entity and the form of, and the terms and conditions governing, the taxpayer’s interest in, or connection with, any non-resident entity, (d) the extent to which any income, profits and gains that may reasonably be considered to be earned or accrued, whether directly or indirectly, for the benefit of any non-resident entity are subject to an income or profits tax that is significantly less than the income tax that would be applicable to such income, profits and gains if they were earned directly by the taxpayer, and (e) the extent to which the income, profits and gains of any non-resident entity for any fiscal period are distributed in that or the immediately following fiscal period, that one of the main reasons for the taxpayer acquiring, holding or having the interest in such property was to derive a benefit from portfolio investments in assets described in any of subparagraphs 94.1(1)(b)(i) to 94.1(1)(b)(ix) in such a manner that the taxes, if any, on the income, profits and gains from such assets for any particular year are significantly less than the tax that would have been applicable under this Part if the income, profits and gains had been earned directly by the taxpayer, there shall be included in computing the taxpayer’s income for the year the amount, if any, by which (f) the total of all amounts each of which is the product obtained when (i) the designated cost to the taxpayer of the offshore investment fund property at the end of a month in the year is multiplied by (ii) 1/12 of the total of (A) the prescribed rate of interest for the period that includes that month, and (B) two per cent exceeds (g) the taxpayer’s income for the year (other than a capital gain) from the offshore investment fund property determined without reference to this subsection. 4        ISSUES [61]         The first issue in this appeal is whether the Funds derived their value, either directly or indirectly, primarily from “portfolio investments” in listed assets (Value Test). ...

The assessment merely recognizes the debt.” [63] The example of Heavyside, in which the Federal Court of Appeal concluded that section 160 applies to a transfer from a husband to a wife where the husband was liable to pay tax even if the husband went bankrupt before either he or his wife were assessed, further demonstrates this point. [64] [157]    The Respondent has made submissions on the fact that Parliament has limited the ambit of section 160, speculating that it may exist since, in respect of subsequent taxation years, a connection between a transfer of property for inadequate consideration and the transferor’s tax liability is weaker. [158]    It submits that the definition of “fiscal period” contained in section 249.1 of the Act has existed, in one form or another, since the enactment of what is now section 160. ...