Search - connection

ANALYSIS AND DECISION             [5]            The relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act are as follows: 6(1) There shall be included in computing the income of a taxpayer in a taxation year as income from an office or employment such of the following amounts as are applicable: 6(1)(e)- where the taxpayer's employer... made an automobile available to the taxpayer, or to a person related to the taxpayer, in the year, the amount, if any, by which (i)             an amount that is a reasonable standby charge for the automobile for the total number of days in the year during which it was made so available exceeds (ii)            the total of all amounts, each of which is an amount (other than an expense related to the operation of the automobile) paid in the year to the employer or the person related to the employer by the taxpayer or the person related to the taxpayer for the use of the automobile;... 6(1)(k) Automobile operating expense benefit- where (i)             an amount is determined under subparagraph (e)(i) in respect of an automobile in computing the taxpayer's income for the year, (ii)            amounts related to the operation (otherwise than in connection with or in the course of the taxpayer's office or employment) of the automobile for the period or periods in the year during which the automobile was made available to the taxpayer or a person related to the taxpayer are paid or payable by the taxpayer's employer or a person related to the taxpayer's employer (each of whom is in this paragraph referred to as the “payor”), and (iii)           the total of the amounts so paid or payable is not paid in the year or within 45 days after the end of the year to the payor by the taxpayer or by the person related to the taxpayer, the amount in respect of the operation of the automobile determined by the formula               A- B where A is (iv)           where the automobile is used primarily in the performance of the duties of the taxpayer's office or employment during the period or periods referred to in subparagraph (ii) and the taxpayer notifies the employer in writing before the end of the year of the taxpayer's intention to have this subparagraph apply, 1/2 of the amount determined under subparagraph (e)(i) in respect of the automobile in computing the taxpayer's income for the year, and... ... In this connection I quote from M. Tang and G. Katz, "Automobile Taxable Benefits and Expenses: Part 1" (1997), 45 Canadian Tax Journal 1150 at 1161. ...

What matters is that, between the two of them, they owned a majority of Chambord's shares giving them the voting power to elect a majority of the directors. [13]          The Appellant very ably puts forth the proposition that the case law and various Department of Finance Technical Notes that there must be "sufficient common connection to be in a position to exercise control. ... Once the number of non-resident shareholders reaches 50 percent plus one, the control and right to elect the Board of Directors has passed to those non-resident shareholders and a common connection between those non-resident shareholders is not a requirement. ...

They import such means as "in relation to", "with reference to" or "in connection with". The phrase "in respect of" is probably the widest of any expression intended to convey some connection between two related subject matters. ...

The individual appellant, who signed both Notices of Appeal ("the Notices")-in his personal capacity as regards his own appeal and as president of Les Constructions Bernard Bélanger Ltée as regards that appellant's appeal-stated the following in those Notices: Bernard Bélanger's appeal, 2000-3397(IT)I [TRANSLATION] (a)            The amounts referred to in the decision of May 15, 2000, concerning benefits conferred by Les Constructions Bélanger Ltée and estimated at $4,000 for 1996 and $8,500 for 1997, when I was a shareholder in the said company, are wrong and unfounded and merely reflect assumptions that the auditor made without proof concerning unexplained deposits in my personal bank account; (b)            I deny having borrowed money from or become indebted to the corporation by reason of my status as a shareholder in connection with the above-mentioned amounts; (c)            As the auditor, Mr. ... Les Constructions Bernard Bélanger Ltée's appeal, 2000-3398(IT)I: [TRANSLATION] (a)            The $8,500 referred to in the Minister's notice of confirmation dated May 15, 2000, which states that this amount is business income for the 1998 taxation year, is wrong and unfounded and is merely pure conjecture based on allegations without proof; (b)            In his letter dated September 17, 1999, the auditor, Miville Marois, refers to unreported income in connection with unexplained deposits in the shareholder's personal bank account, a copy of the said letter being attached hereto as Exhibit A-1; (c)            I request that those amounts not be included in my income and that they be cancelled along with the interest; (d)            As the said auditor was told, our strongbox and equipment were stolen in 1996; he asked us to provide documents that were inside the said strongbox, which we could not do, of course; we always co-operated fully with the said auditor; (e)            The said auditor estimated amounts without any proof, which is why I am contesting the said decision; (f)             As Exhibit A-2, I am filing in evidence a copy of the purchase invoice for a new strongbox and a copy of the report from the Service de la Sécurité publique proving the theft of the strongbox; (g)            I am also filing a copy of correspondence, a conditional withdrawal notice and an amendment form concerning the Ministère du Revenu of Quebec so that they can be taken into account. [3]            According to the two Notices of Appeal, the respondent acted in error and without justification and the amounts involved merely reflect assumptions that the auditor made, without any proof, concerning unexplained deposits in the individual appellant's personal bank account. [4]            In support of the appeals, Bernard Bélanger argued basically that he had always liked $1,000 bills and that he was in the habit of keeping small bills and then exchanging them for $1,000 bills, which were the source of the deposits upon which the assessments were based. [5]            To explain the origin of the $22,500 deposited in his personal account, Mr. ...

Further, paragraph 18(1)(h) specifically limits the deductibility of personal or living expenses, which are defined in subsection 248(1) of the Act, and excludes expenses in connection with a property unless it is maintained in connection with a business carried on for profit or with a reasonable expectation of profit. ...

._______________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: The Appellant herself Counsel for the Respondent: Christine Mohr_______________________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment (Delivered orally from the Bench atToronto, Ontario, on November 23, 1999) Bowie, J.T.C.C. [1] In filing her income tax returns for 1993, 1994, and 1995, the Appellant claimed to be entitled to deduct from her other income certain losses she had suffered in connection with a condominium townhouse in Collingwood, Ontario. ... It does not appear that the intention to treat the asset as inventory was ever abandoned by the Appellant or any other member of the group. [16] The result, therefore, is that the owners, during 1993, 1994, and 1995, were precluded by section 10.1 and subsection 18(2) of the Income Tax Act from deducting interest or property taxes from their income except to the extent that the gross revenues in those years exceeded the other expenses in connection with the property. [17] It follows that there can be no losses to deduct in those years, and that the excess of interest, taxes and other expenses beyond that which is required to reduce the income to zero in each year is an addition to the value of the unit as inventory. ...

John Lee (Lee), to whom it was owed as a fee or commission in connection with a real estate transaction. ... Carca serves as the medium through which the Appellant controls the flow of profits from Tebrik, and his other operating companies, to himself and other members of his family, principally in the form of management fees. [3] The Appellant's evidence in connection with the disputed amount is that while Tebrik was engaged in the development of land in Newmarket, Lee came to him and indicated that he was in a position to secure a parcel of land (the W land) which was then in use as a tree farm, but which was sought after by developers as having considerable profit potential. ...

Paragraph 18(1)(h) specifically limits the deductibility of personal or living expenses, which are defined in subsection 248(1) of the Act to exclude expenses in connection with a property unless it is maintained in connection with a business carried on for profit or with a reasonable expectation of profit. [9] In Moldowan v. ...

Nicole Gorenko, on behalf of Gor-Can Canada Inc. understand and agree to the above proposed settlement with Revenue Canada and agree to waive any rights of Objection and of Appeal, in accordance with subsections 165(1.2) and 169(2.2) of the Income Tax Act, with respect to the assessments that will be issued in connection therewith, including any rights the companies may have under the “fairness package”.________________________________ DATE SIGNATURE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT REVENUE CANADA- APPEALS DIVISION (Montreal) Date: July 2, 1996 Re: Notice of Objection for 1990, 1991, 1993 and 1994, concerning: Alpha Leather Canada Ltd. ... John Gorenko, on behalf of Alpha Leather Canada Ltd. understands and agrees to the above proposed settlement with Revenue Canada and agrees to waive any rights of Objection and of Appeal, in accordance with subsections 165(1.2) and 169(2.2) of the Income Tax Act, with respect to the assessments that will be issued in connection therewith, including any rights the companies may have under the “fairness package”.________________________________ DATE SIGNATURE [6] I note the Gor-Can settlement specifies items not allowed under the settlement remain unchanged. ...

The matter of ties within the jurisdiction asserting residence and elsewhere runs the gamut of an individual’s connections and commitments: property and investment, employment, family, business, cultural and social are examples, again not purporting to be exhaustive. ... They have no connection to this country. This is not a case where some factors point in one direction while some point in another and, on a balance of probability, must be weighed in that context. ...