Search - connection

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. [6] In Moldowan v. ...

Work expended on or in connection with property realized [15] From acquisition, no work was expended in connection with either property. ...

If the taxpayer generates sales from commercial activity and reports these sales as income (the taxpayer reported sales of at least $5,000.00 in 2010, sales in excess of $50,000.00 in 2011, and will report significantly higher sales in 2012) and if the taxpayer can establish that the ITC’s are not in connection with exempt supplies (which the taxpayer has established), then the ITC’s are entitled to be claimed as against the commercial activity of the taxpayer without CRA improperly denying the ITC’s or without CRA searching for a specious rationale for denying the ITC’s. It is an untenable position on the part of CRA to suggest that all GST/HST collected in connection with the taxpayer’s commercial activity must be paid to CRA but the ITC’s incurred by the taxpayer should be disregarded. ...

On the test of control, I believe that test favours employment over Shelley being an independent contractor. [12] With regard to the ownership of the tools, my first reaction is that tools were never thought of in connection with services like this. ... One does not think of tools in connection with childcare but, if the word is to be given a broader meaning, that is the properties that would permit a service to be rendered, those personal properties would be dishes and cutlery to feed the children, a stove to warm their food, toys with which they played, diapers for infant children because they are necessary items for the care of a very small child, a van to transport the children if they are to be taken on outings of any kind. ...

General limitations 18(1) In computing the income of a taxpayer from a business or property no deduction shall be made in respect of General limitation (a)     an outlay 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; Personal and living expenses (h) 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; Definitions 248(1) in this Act, “personal or living expenses” – “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, (b)    the expenses, premiums or other costs of a policy of insurance, annuity contract or other like contract if the proceeds of the policy or contract are payable to or for the benefit of the taxpayer or a person connected with the taxpayer by blood relationship, marriage or common-law partnership or adoption, and (c)     expenses of properties maintained by an estate or trust for the benefit of the taxpayer as one of the beneficiaries; Analysis [19]         The appellant claimed a deduction of legal expenses and damages totaling $27,078 in his 2011 income tax return. ... The activities carried out by the appellant in 2001 and 2002 in connection with the airline venture did not constitute a source of income for him. [25]         Even if the airline activities were to constitute a source of income for the appellant, that source of income disappeared when Val Air Inc. declared bankruptcy in 2004 and when Les Lignes Aériennes Val Air Inc. was dissolved in 2008. ...

The child either already had been primarily living with his father, the Appellant, with the Appellant picking up all child expenses in lieu of paying the monthly support amounts, or the child commenced to do so in 2013 with his mother’s impending or actual move to Drayton Valley. [13]          Also in connection with subsection 118(5) there seems no issue between the parties that the support payments required by the December 2, 2010 Order would each constitute a subsection 56.1(4) defined “support amount”. ... In this regard I concur with the decision of this Court in Young, supra, per Sarchuk, J., that no statutory language used in or in connection with subsection 118(1) indicates that the deductions may be prorated for a taxation year, noting in contrast with other provisions in the Act by which Parliament has explicitly provided for proration. [27]          A similar conclusion was reached in Giroux, supra. ...

On line 229 of his income tax return, the appellant also claimed the amount of $27,414 as other employment expenses. [9]   On July 30, 2015, the appellant asked the Ville de Montréal to pay for the costs incurred in connection with the searches performed at his home and borough office. [10]   In a letter dated August 5, 2015, the Ville de Montréal informed the appellant that it refused to cover the fees of the appellant’s legal counsel because it was not a legal proceeding under the Cities and Towns Act and because the appellant was not prosecuted in connection with the searches. [11]   In a letter dated October 3, 2016, the Canada Revenue Agency (the “CRA”) asked the appellant to provide explanations regarding the $27,414 employment expense. [12]   In response to the CRA’s request for information, the appellant indicated, in a letter dated October 18, 2016, that the legal fees had been incurred to preserve his right to continue his employment with the Ville de Montréal and to receive the resulting remuneration. [13]   The CRA did not accept the explanations provided by the appellant, and the Minister made a reassessment, which disallowed the deduction of legal expenses in the amount of $27,414 because the legal expenses were not incurred to collect wages or to establish his right to wages that his employer owed him, as required under paragraph 8(1)(b) of the Act. [14]   Following this reassessment, the appellant filed a notice of objection in a letter dated February 7, 2017, in which the appellant alleged that the expense was necessary to maintain his income and that his profession’s code of conduct demanded that all necessary measures be taken to [translation] “maintain the honour, dignity and reputation of the profession and maintain the public’s trust in the profession.” [15]   Following a conference call on December 15, 2017 with the appeals officer responsible for processing the appellant’s notice of objection, the appellant sent the appeals officer a table, on January 2, 2018, showing the amounts of fees billed by McMillan LLP regarding solicitor-client privilege and other related matters. ...

These claimed expenditures were incurred in connection with a construction project carried on by the Appellant during those two years. ... They would have been expected to “power the home”. [7] [21] The connection between roof trusses and tops of walls was the focus of air sealing utilizing a peel and stick membrane to ensure air tightness. [8] This is more air sealing than in a code built home, but is important because much heat loss typically occurs through the attic. ...

In this connection, it was mentioned in a letter dated January 14, 1988 to the Department of National Revenue by the appellant's accountant in support of the contention that the above property was purchased with the intention to earn income that" it was expected that the income would increase at the rate off] inflation and the mortgage payment would remain constant producing a substantially larger income". ... Having regard to the observations made in the preceding cases, it would be unreasonable, in my view, to conclude that the appellant ceased overnight to have a reasonable expectation of profit in connection with the rental of the subject property as soon as the slump in the real estate market surfaced. ...

The purchase of the tanker truck seemed justified at the time by the fact that another lower powered tanker truck had become inadequate to meet the appellant's requirements in connection with its ability to perform its obligation to Agrinove under annual transportation contracts between the appellant and that business. ... However, the factor of time was emphasized by counsel for the appellant and I feel that it is also relevant here, since there were several activities in connection with use of the truck, namely collecting the milk, its transportation and delivery and finally returning empty for another load on the same day, and so on the following day. ...