Search - connection

  [4]               The evidence also establishes that:   (a)               during the 17-year period from 1987 to 2003, the Appellant suffered annual losses in connection with his business, except in 1999;   (b)              for the years from 1987 to 2003, the Appellant's gross business income, net business income and income from employment were as follows:     Gross business income   Net business income Income from employment Type of income according to income tax return 1987 $1,548-$3,384 $42,680 Farm income 1988 $25,864-$8,979 $38,145 Business income 1989 $27,975-$5,028 $27,766 Farm income 1990 $5,851-$9,761 $45,658 Business income 1991 $870-$11,017 $41,227 Business income 1992 $6,623-$446 $39,880 Farm income 1993 $429-$8,743 $40,136 Farm income 1994 $1,115-$4,176 $45,456 Farm income 1995 $6,452-$3,520 $38,763 Farm income 1996 $1,454-$6,343 $40,446 Farm income 1997 $6,083-$4,175 $42,277 Farm income 1998 $36,632-$1,891 $39,728 Farm income 1999 $234,290 $9,824 $24,130 Business income 2000 $117,884-$31,112 $41,300 Business income 2001 $34,554-$57,715 $41,439 Business income 2002 $14,244-$43,292 $44,050 Farm income 2003 $18,287-$37,062 $43,269 Farm income   It should be noted that the Appellant himself described his business income in his income tax returns as farm income, except for the years from 1999 to 2001;   (c)               For the years 1998 to 2006, the Appellant's gross business income was broken down under the following heads:     Woodlot sales   Syrup sales Other income Cottage rental   Total 1998 20,267 14,191 2,172   36,630 1999 215,922 14,885 3,483   234,290 2000 77,247 26,107 14,529   117,883 2001 14,751 15,775 4,028   34,554 2002 36 5,345 7,480   12,861 2003   3,759 13,598   17,357 2004 1,170 5,494 5,576 2,000 14,240 2005 5,949 2,000 5,322 7,600 20,871 2006 13,773   11,578 2,400 27,751______________________________________________________________ Total 349,115 87,556 67,766 12,000 516,437     (d)              the Appellant's long-term business debt was $220,851 as at December 31, 2000, $205,514 as at December 31, 2001, $156,408 as at December 31, 2002, $142,276 as at December 31, 2003, $127,040 as at December 31, 2004, $117,242 as at December 31, 2005 and $107,291 as at December 31, 2006;   (e)               the Appellant's capital contributions to his business were as follows:     Year Contribution   1998 ‑ 1999 12,000 2000 43,387 2001 47,082 2002 39,555 2003 38,070 2004 31,762 2005 18,643 2006 25,301     (f)                the interest paid by the Appellant on the business's long-term debt was as follows:   Year Interest paid   1998 2,729 1999 12,960 2000 16,301 2001 16,006 2002 14,548 2003 10,703 2004 7,552 2005 7,011 2006 7,211     Appellant's Position   [5]               The position taken by the Appellant at the hearing is essentially what is set out in his notice of appeal, which reads as follows:   [TRANSLATION] I am a lumberjack's son and I was a lumberjack myself by trade from 1969 to 1978. ...     [8]               Accordingly, in order to determine whether the Appellant was operating a farming operation or logging business, we must establish, in my opinion, based on the evidence submitted, what activities (in connection with the operation of the woodlots) were really carried on by the Appellant; we must then determine which of those activities were associated specifically with one or another of the businesses; and finally, we must determine their relative importance. ...   [9]               The activities (in connection with the operation of the woodlot) that were really carried on by the Appellant during the years 1987 to 2003 were as follows:   (a)               The Appellant did work associated with the conservation, maintenance, regeneration and reforestation of his woodlot (work that, in my opinion, is associated specifically with a farming operation), on land with an area of a little over nine hectares, that is, about 5% of the total area of his woodlot, which, it will be recalled, covered about 180 hectares. ...

(b)                In arriving at the adjusted cost base in calculating the capital gain on the Lot, the Appellant did not use the calculations that she herself had done in connection with the disposition of the Immovable in 2001 ... The acquisition process and the other transactions related to the eventual implementation and use of capital property in connection with the business are an integral part of the operations of the business, as are the plans and specifications associated therewith. ...   [48]          Indeed, the minor work in connection with soil quality, levelling, and the announcement of the vocation of the temporarily laid-out and landscaped site are not of such nature as to necessarily consider a property to be primarily used for the purposes of gaining or producing business income ...

There is no disinterested evidence of the Appellant's perspective that its materials are the principal materials employed in connection with its services. ... There was a line of income tax cases that held that "goods for sale" included goods supplied to customers for consideration regardless of the supply of a service in connection with that supply of goods. That is, these authorities tended to ignore the general law that would force consideration of that connection to ensure that the supply was not simply a supply of work and materials which is not a sale of goods. ...

They import such meanings 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. In the context of s. 32, the words "in respect of" require only that the relevant proceedings have some connection to a cause of action. [16]     One must also consider the definition of "specified portion", which can be distilled to read: the portion of the qualifying amount received by an individual that the individual was entitled to receive in the eligible taxation year. ...

A change in the taxpayer's mode and habit of work or reasonable expectations may signify a change in the chief source, but that is a question of fact in the circumstances. [14] There has been difference of opinion on whether the word "combination" in subsection 13(1) requires some "connection" by way of physical relationship or integration or inter-connection between farming and the subordinate activity which provides another source of income. Paragraph 3(f) of the Income War Tax Act of 1917, as amended, made reference to "connection" in defining the permissible deductions from income derived from the chief business, trade, profession or occupation of the taxpayer in determining his taxable income. ...

The Appellant was dealing with the Appeals Department of Revenue Canada at that point in time in connection with his allowable business investment loss. [12]          The questionable areas in an attempted reconstruction of the loan are firstly, the $82,500 which the Appellant claimed was recorded by the company in error as sales income. ... Where a shareholder provides a guarantee or an interest free loan to that company in order to provide capital to that company, a clear nexus exists between the taxpayer and the potential future income. 9 Where a loan is made for the purpose of earning income through the payment of dividends, this connection is sufficient to satisfy the purpose requirement of subparagraph 40(2)(g) (ii). [31]          This must still depend on the circumstances of the actual advances. ... I find most telling Michael Rich's testimony that nothing was written in connection with the advances from his father because it was their understanding the monies would be repaid. ...

Section 4.1 Profit                 For the purposes of this Article 4, "profit" of the Partnership shall be calculated for each fiscal year (or part thereof) of the Partnership in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in Canada consistently applied, and shall include, without limitation, all sales revenue generated from the Business (less any actual expenses incurred in connection with any such sales) after deducting all reasonable operating expenses properly incurred in connection with the Business. ... In connection therewith, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing or any other provision of this Agreement, the General Partner will have full power and authority for and on behalf of the Partnership to:... ...

They import such meanings 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.... ... Savage were not in relation to or in connection with her employment. As Mr. ...

For the purposes of paragraph (1)(e), a reasonable standby charge for an automobile for the total number of days (in this subsection referred to as the "total available days") in a taxation year during which the automobile is made available to a taxpayer or to a person related to the taxpayer by the employer of the taxpayer or by a person related to the employer (both of whom are in this subsection referred to as the "employer") shall be deemed to be the amount determined by the formula A × [(2 % × (C × D) + 2 × (E- F)] B                                                       3 where A              is the lesser of (a)                 the total number of kilometres that the automobile is driven (otherwise than in connection with or in the course of the taxpayer's office or employment) during the total available days, and (b)            the value determined for B for the year under this subsection in respect of the standby charge for the automobile during the total available days, except that the amount determined under paragraph (a) shall be deemed to be equal to the amount determined under paragraph (b) unless (c)            the taxpayer is required by the employer to use the automobile in connection with or in the course of the office or employment, and (d)            all or substantially all of the distance travelled by the automobile in the total available days is in connection with or in the course of the office or employment; B              is the product obtained when 1,000 is multiplied by the quotient obtained by dividing the total available days by 30 and, if the quotient so obtained is not a whole number and exceeds one, by rounding it to the nearest whole number or, where that quotient is equidistant from two consecutive whole numbers, by rounding it to the lower of those two numbers; C              is the cost of the automobile to the employer where the employer owns the vehicle at any time in the year; D              is the number obtained by dividing such of the total available days as are days when the employer owns the automobile by 30 and, if the quotient so obtained is not a whole number and exceeds one, by rounding it to the nearest whole number or, where that quotient is equidistant from two consecutive whole numbers, by rounding it to the lower of those two numbers; E               is the total of all amounts that may reasonably be regarded as having been payable by the employer to a lessor for the purpose of leasing the automobile during such of the total available days as are days when the automobile is leased to the employer; and F               is the part of the amount determined for E that may reasonably be regarded as having been payable to the lessor in respect of all or part of the cost to the lessor of insuring against (a)            loss of, or damage to, the automobile, or (b)            liability resulting from the use or operation of the automobile. [41]          The formula in subsection 6(2) of the Act is very explicit and sets out the exact amounts that must be included in the income of the recipient of the benefit. ...

Law [13]         A commissioned sales employee can make deductions from her or his employment income only if the type of expense is specified under section 8 of the Act. [5] Each subsection stipulates that the employee must be required by her or his employer, under a contract of employment, to pay for the expenses in the year in the course of her or his employment. [14]         Paragraph 8(1)(f) authorizes the deduction of expenses up to the limit of commission income earned. [6] In addition to those conditions, the amounts must be expended by the employee in the year for the purpose of earning income from employment, and the employee must also:           (a)     be employed in the year in connection with the selling of property or negotiating contracts for her or his employer;           (b)     ordinarily be required to carry on duties of the employment away from the employer’s place of business;           (c)      be remunerated, in whole or in part,  by commissions; and           (d)     not be in receipt of a non-taxable travel allowance. [15]         A specified expense will only qualify as a deduction if the above conditions are met and the expense was:           (a)     not an outlay, loss or replacement of capital or payment on account of capital;           (b)     not an outlay or expense that is not deductible pursuant to paragraph 18(1)(l);           (c)      not an amount described in subparagraph 8(1)(f)(vii) in connection with standby charges for a vehicle; and           (d)     reasonable in the circumstances. [16]         The application of the purpose test in paragraph 8(1)(f) is similar though not identical to the business expenses purpose test. [7] The Supreme Court of Canada in Symes v Canada, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695 (SCC), involving the later test, at paragraph 68, notes that in considering the purpose behind actions, courts should not be guided only by a taxpayer’s statements, ex post facto or as to the subjective purpose of an expenditure. ... Subsection 8(2) contains the g eneral limitation which reads “ E xcept as permitted by this section, no deductions shall be made in computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from an office or employment. ”   [6]         Paragraph 8(1)(f) reads: 8 (1)      In computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from an office or employment, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as are wholly applicable to that source or such part of the following amounts as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto … (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 8(1)(f)(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 8(1)(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); … [7]               That is, were the amounts expended by the taxpayer in the year for the purpose of earning income from employment ...