Search - connection

Discussion [9]              I will first consider the legal expense incurred by the appellant in connection with the mandatory surrogacy contract. ...

Furthermore nothing in the language of the document limits the deduction of accounting costs incurred by the Appellant in connection with the enforcement of her children's right to support by their father. ...

Analysis [10] Since the appellant had already come before this Court once before in connection with her employment with the same payer, and since she therefore ought to have known that the burden of proof was on her, it would have been normal or even necessary that the evidence adduced in support of this appeal should be clear, articulate and, most of all, complete and satisfactory. ...

But where there is credible evidence, as there is here, of actual use and enjoyment by the taxpayer of the contiguous land in connection with her house, and such use and enjoyment is not exaggerated or unnatural sort, a great deal of weight must be attached to it in assessing whether such use can be reasonably regarded as contributing to the taxpayer's use and enjoyment of his residence. ...

The appreciation or expectation of profit benefited the shareholder, not the appellant who gave the guarantee. [20] There was no direct connection between the guarantee and the acquisition of shares. ...

(f) where the taxpayer was employed in the year in connection with the selling of property or negotiating of contracts for the taxpayer’s employer, and (i) under the contract of employment was required to pay the taxpayer's own expenses, (ii) was ordinarily required to carry on the duties of the employment away from the employer’s place of business, (iii) was remunerated in whole or part by commissions or other similar amounts fixed by reference to the volume of the sales made or the contracts negotiated, and (iv) was not in receipt of an allowance for travel expenses in respect of the taxation year that was, by virtue of subparagraph 6(1)(b)(v), not included in computing the taxpayer’s income, amounts expended by the taxpayer in the year for the purpose of earning the income from the employment (not exceeding the commissions or other similar amounts referred to in subparagraph (iii) and received by the taxpayer in the year) to the extent that those amounts were not (v) outlays, losses or replacements of capital or payments on account of capital, except as described in paragraph (j), (vi) outlays or expenses that would, by virtue of paragraph 18(1)(l), not be deductible in computing the taxpayer’s income for the year if the employment were a business carried on by the taxpayer, or (vii) amounts the payment of which reduced the amount that would otherwise be included in computing the taxpayer’s income for the year because of paragraph 6(1)(e);... 8(1)(i) amounts paid by the taxpayer in the year as... ...

I should note at this point that the Minister did allow to the Appellant his losses sustained in the 1992 taxation year in connection with an ill-fated salmon farming enterprise. [2]      Mr. ...

Toussaint, was responsible for some of the work, however, including foundations, plumbing, and connections to municipal services. ...

The applicable statutory provisions are paragraph 3(1) (a) of the Unemployment Insurance Act and paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Employment Insurance Act. [3] By Notice of Assessment dated February 10, 1997 the Respondent assessed the Appellant with respect to, inter alia, certain amounts of unemployment insurance premiums, interest and penalties alleged to be payable by the Appellant pursuant to the Acts mentioned above in connection with the services performed for the Appellant in 1996 by certain persons listed in Schedule "A" to the Reply to the Notice of Appeal. ...

The only issue is whether there is a sufficient connection between Mr. ...