Search - connection

The basis on which the appellant was assessed is: REPLY TO NOTICE OF APPEAL STATEMENT OF FACTS: (a) The appellant, at all material times during the 1973 taxation year was employed as a teacher at Fanshawe College; (b) no portion of the expenses claimed by the appellant in the 1973 taxation year, were made or incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income from the business of raising horses; (c) the aforesaid amount constituted: expenses for the maintenance of a farm property by the appellant for the use or benefit of the appellant or any person or persons connected with the appellant by blood relationship, marriage, or adoption, and the property was not maintained in connection with a. business carried on for a profit, or with a reasonable expectation of profit. ...

In computing his income for his 1976 and 1977 taxation years, the appellant deducted as losses suffered in connection with such farming businesses the sum of $449,909 and $138,136 respectively. ... Mr Justice Gibson went for the analysis of what is a source, what is a chief source, and what is a combination and he went through whether or not there has to be a connection. ... Mr Justice Sweet said that there were three aspects to be considered: (1) the situation where there are only two sources of income, one of them being farming; (2) characteristics other than “connection” qualifying farming for inclusion in a combination of farming and some other source of income within the meaning of section 13 of the Act as indicated by Moldowan; (3) whether there need be any “connection” between farming and the other source of income. ...

Point at Issue The issue is whether: (a) in 1973 and 1974 the appellant, as the City of Granby’s industrial commissioner, met the requirements of paragraph 8(1)(f) of the new Act, and was employed “in connection with the selling of property or negotiating of contracts’’ for his employer, the City of Granby; and (b) for 1973 and 1974, the sums of $3,500 and $5,500 respectively can be allowed as deductions against commissions of $3,035.70 and $10,595.04. 2. ... Deductions allowed. (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) Salesman’s expenses:—where the taxpayer was employed in the year in connection with the selling of property or negotiating of contracts for his employer, and (i) under the contract of employment was required to pay his own expenses, (ii) was ordinarily required to carry on the duties of his employment away from his 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 or the contracts negotiated, and (iv) was not in receipt of an allowance for travelling expenses in respect of the taxation year that was, by virtue of subparagraph 6(1)(b)(v), not included in computing his income, amounts expended by him in the year for the purpose of earning the income from the employment (not exceeding the commissions or other similar amount fixed as aforesaid received by him in the year) to the extent that such amounts were not (v) outlays, losses or replacements of capital or payments on account of capital, except as described in paragraph (j), or (vi) outlays or expenses that would, by virtue of paragraph 8(1)(l), not be deductible in computing the taxpayer’s income for the year if the employment were a business carried on by him. 4.2 Conditions to be met 4.2.1 The first condition to be met is that, in the years in question, the appellant must have been “employed... in connection with the selling of property or negotiating of contracts for his employer”. ... —all amounts received by him in the year as an allowance for personal or living expenses or as an allowance for any other purpose, except (v) reasonable allowances for travelling expenses received by an employee from his employer in respect of a period when he was employed in connection with the selling of property or negotiating of contracts for his employer. ...

In her will she provided that all death duties payable on her death were to be paid out of her general estate except “duties that may be payable by a purchaser or transferee in connection with any property transferred to or acquired by such purchaser or transferee upon or after my death pursuant to any agreement with respect to such property”. ... The question put to me by the trustees on which they have asked the opinion, advice and direction of the Court is as follows: Are the executors and trustees obligated to pay out of the deceased’s estate the estate, inheri- tance and succession taxes or duties that may be payable in connection with any property forming part of the Trusts? ... Again, in the last sentence of the second last paragraph on page 724, he says: The trustees are not obligated to pay out of the deceased’s estate any taxes that may be payable in connection with the property forming part of the trusts. ...

In 1969 the Minister issued reassessments against the appellant in respect of 1967, and also 1965 and 1966 (the latter two reassessments being for the purpose of allowing interest and taxes as expenses) on the basis that the appellant was engaged in a business in connection with the property. ... Her evidence was clear that, in computing her income in 1965 and 1966, she did not take into account either the real property taxes or the mortgage interest paid by her in connection with the said property. ... In addition to lending money on mortgages he also lent money on chattel mortgages and promissory notes as a means of getting paid for his legal work in connection with divorce cases or bailing people out of gaol on Sunday mornings. ...

Since he did not give evidence, I can only assume that although a shareholder, he had little or no formal or practical connection with the operation of this company. ... This corroborates the evidence given by Dr Connor when he indicated that this is the sort of business in which he could manage alone until the company obtained a contract, and then, through his various connections in teaching, lecturing and writing, was able to go out and fill his staff requirements for the particular contract. 26 There was also called on behalf of the appellant Dr Katharine B Cooke, who at the present time is on leave from her regular governmental duties and is chairman of the federal Advisory Council on the Status of Women. ... All of these documents, some of which were originally published in 1968 or earlier, but have been reprinted as late as 1974 in one instance, are obvious attempts to influence interested clients in employing the services of the appellant himself. 37 The newsletters, as I refer to them, are headed “Constructive Citizen Participation”, and other than Development Press, which is a registered trade name—the evidence does not quite say that but that is an inference I am prepared to draw—the only name that appears in them that has any connection whatsoever with the limited company is that of Desmond M Connor. ...

Mr Detenbeck accepted the responsibility for the accounting and income tax treatment originally accorded the payments made in connection with the cranes, pointing out that the cranes were not registered in the name of the appellant, and that as an accountant he could not have shown the cranes as assets of the Company since this might have distorted the financial presentation and might have left him liable to criticism and possibly legal action. ... In this connection, he introduced Exhibit A-5, copies of letters between his office and the appellant, but there was no clear evidence as to whether this effort to sell or lease had ever been consummated. ... It is acknowledged that Charles Roy Stewart was during the period 1968 to 1972 the controlling shareholder in the Company, but if there is to be any reasonable distinction made between Charles Roy Stewart as president of C R Stewart Equipment Limited, and the corporate entity C R Stewart Equipment Limited itself, such a distinction must certainly be made at the point where the alleged shortcomings of Charles Roy Stewart personally might be visited upon the corporation, without direct connection. ...

It had become un- necessary to buy francs each time there was a purchase of goods and, as expressed in the grounds of appeal, the appellant maintained: that, consequently, the company stopped paying its bills abroad through forward purchasing of French francs; in other words, it stopped taking forward positions in French francs in connection with its particular business operation, which involves selling draperies. 4.09 The company then decided, on the basis of a contract dated May 3, 1974, to undertake the purchase of 6 million French francs at the rate of FF 500,00 per month, at a cost of $0.1933 per franc, that is, at a monthly cost of $96,650 with the due date calculated from June 1, 1974. ... Arguments submitted by the appellant 5.3.1 In its notice of appeal the appellant gave its arguments, in part: 4.0 The twelve contracts for forward purchases of FF 500,000 each, signed on May 3, 1974 by the “appellant”, constitute “additional purchases” of French currency which fall outside the range of activities considered normal in the drapery business, and these contracts were concluded by the appellant “as a speculation for its own account”. 5.0 The “appellant” stresses the fact that the foreign exchange contracts involving French currency and signed on May 3, 1974 represent transactions in commodity futures, which are carried on in connection with a host of different commodities such as cereals, metals (gold and silver) and, more especially, foreign currency. ... In this connection, the taxpayer is prepared to obtain all necessary affidavits from BNP Canada Inc. 11.0 The “appellant’’ is of the opinion that paragraphs 9, 13 and 14 of Interpretation Bulletin IT-346 confirm the merit of its appeal to the Board. ...

In connection with the purchase, Bar Circle arranged for a loan from the Toronto-Dominion Bank in Edmonton (Bank) and the appellants personally guaranteed that loan. ... —After the sale to Mappin, the appellants had placed Golden Bear into voluntary liquidation and they had no connection with the restaurant business which continued under Mappin as the Bar Circle. ... In this connection, I would make general reference to Smith, Stone and Knight Ltd v Birmingham Corp, [1939] 4 All ER 116. ...

This same connotation is referred to by Kearney, L in MNR v Colford Contracting Co, Ltd, [1960] CTC 178 at 186; 60 DTC 1131 at 1135 in connection with the meaning of the word “receivable”. ... Referring back to our comments in connection with the custom of the trade, the appellant submits that his relationship with the broker after execution of the margin agreement was one of principal and agent. In that regard, the broker is entitled only to his usual commission and expenses incurred in connection with the carrying out of his duties as agent. ...