Search - connection

It is of very little substance either way on that particular point—but it does have significance later on in this decision in connection with one of the appellant’s alternative arguments. ... In this connection, I quote from Southern (supra) at pp 1150 and 1730 respectively:... ... Paragraph (b) of the Letters Patent reads as follows (the italics are mine): TO carry on business as investors, brokers and agents, and to undertake, carry on and execute all kinds of financial, commercial, trading and other operations which may seem to be capable of being conveniently carried on in connection with any of the objects of the Company or calculated directly to enhance the value of or facilitate the realization of or render profitable any of the Company’s property or rights. ...

Mr Moreau has no connection with those clients in that he does not invoice them or remind them that their policy is coming up for renewal. ... The paragraph he referred to reads as follows: President Thorson (as he then was) said in the case of Losey v MNR, [1957] CTC 146 at 152; 57 DTC 1098 at 1101: “But the value of the goodwill of a business is what a purchaser would be willing to give for the chance of being able to keep the connection of which it consists... ... The result is, having considered the facts of this case, and having read the Cumberland Investments Limited case several times, I have concluded that the expenditure made by Mr Moreau in 1973 in connection with his acquisition from Mr Bellehumeur was an outlay within the meaning of paragraph 18(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, SC 1970-71-72, c 63, as amended, and not within paragraph 18(1)(a). ...

They have no connection with each other or with Mr A G Joyce. They propose to form a management company (GMDB Limitée) and the latter will purchase the 400 ordinary shares of MSS from A G Joyce Limited. 2. ... In assessing the appellant for its 1976 and 1977 taxation years, the respondent relied inter alia on the following presumptions of fact: (a) the appellant is a wholly-owned subsidiary of GMBD Ltée; (b) in calculating its income for each of the 1976 and 1977 taxation years, the appellant claimed a deduction for the amounts of $33,300 and $40,000 respectively, which it alleged that it paid its parent company GMBD Ltée as management fees; (c) during the years at issue, GMBD Ltée employed no one; (d) GMBD Ltée had no organization, and no administrative or management system, that would have enabled it to provide management services to the appellant; (e) GMBD Ltée in fact provided the appellant with no management services during the years at issue; (f) the only activities of GMBD Ltée consisted of collecting dividends and management fees from the appellant MSS Inc and repaying A G Joyce Ltd for the debt of GMBD Ltée in connection with the purchase of the appellant’s shares; (g) the only managemnt services which were rendered to the appellant were by the directors and/or employees of the appellant, and in that capacity only: their salaries and other expenses were paid by the appellant; (h) the amounts paid to GMBD Ltée by the appellant were not paid for the purpose of producing an income for the appellant; (i) the amounts in question are unreasonable in the circumstances. ...

As noted in Sorenson, “wilfully” in the relevant section of the Act does have some clear implications in connection with the Minister’s responsibility. ... It remains therefore for the Minister to show that this taxpayer knew or should have known that tax was payable — in connection with the three remaining years. ...

His further written comments in connection with the appeal were: (i) I have always been prudent in incurring any expense for the department, and in my move I was desirous of speeding up move as much as possible to avoid travelling costs from residence in Kitchener to duties in Hamilton. ... Moving expenses, as permitted by subsection 62(3), do not, as I see it, mean outlays or costs incurred in connection with the acquisition of the new residence. ...

., explained the meaning of ‘in the course of”, and appeared to give it a rather broad meaning, as [sic] least as broad as “à l'occasion de’’: “It may not always be easy to decide whether an expense has to arisen but it seems to me that the words ‘in the course of’ in section 11 (1)(cb) are not a reference in the time when the expenses are incurred but are used in the sense of ‘in connection with’ or ‘incidental to’ or ‘arising from’ and refer to the process of carrying out or the things which must be undertaken to carry out the issuing or selling or borrowing for or in connection with which the expenses are incurred.” ...

They read as follows: 31 (1) Where a taxpayer’s chief source of income for a taxation year is neither farming nor a combination of farming and some other source of income, for the purposes of sections 3 and 111 his loss, if any, for the year from all farming busi- nessess carried on by him shall be deemed to be the aggregate of (a) the lesser of (i) the amount by which the aggregate of his losses for the year, determined without reference to this section and before making any deductions in respect of expenditures described in section 37, from all farming businesses carried on by him exceeds the aggregate of his incomes for the year, so determined from all such businesses, and (ii) $2,500 plus the lesser of (A) /2 of the amount by which the amount determined under subparagraph (i) exceeds $2,500, and (B) $2,500, and (b) the amount, if any, by which (i) the amount that would be determined under subparagraph (a)(i) if it were read as though the words “and before making any deductions in respect of expenditures described in section 37” were deleted exceeds (ii) the amount determined under subparagraph (a)(i); and for the purposes of this Act the amount, if any, by which the amount determined under subparagraph (a)(i) exceeds the amount determined under subparagraph (a)(ii) is the taxpayer’s “restricted farm loss” for the year. (2) For the purpose of this section, the Minister may determine that a taxpayer’s chief source of income for a taxation year is neither farming nor a combination of farming and some other source of income. 248. (1) In this Act, “farming” includes tillage of the soil, livestock raising or exhibiting, maintaining of horses for racing, raising of poultry, fur farming, dairy farming, fruit growing and the keeping of bees, but does not include an office or employment under a person engaged in the business of farming; “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 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 him by blood relationship, marriage or adoption, and (c) expenses of properties maintained by an estate or trust for the benefit of the taxpayer as one of the beneficiaries. 4.02 Cases at Law The counsel for the parties referred the Board to the following cases: 1. ... See also paragraph 139(1)(ae) of the Income Tax Act which includes as “personal and living expenses” and therefore not deductible for tax purposes, the expenses of properties maintained by the taxpayer for his own use and benefit, and not maintained in connection with a business carried on for profit or with a reasonable expectation of profit. ...

While both JMJ and Mr Newman, the chartered accountant who acted for and advised JMJ in connection with the 1971-72 reorganization, testified that the named reasons were the reasons for the transactions, it seems unlikely that cash flow was a very important primary reason. ... If there is any further information you require in connection with the above, please do not hesitate to contact the writer. ...

In 1974, however, ten years after the Equitable Acceptance Corp Ltd judgment [supra], in Yonge-Fqlinton Building Ltd v MNR, [1974] CTC 209; 74 DTC 6180, the Federal Cour. of Appeal, per Thurlow, J, explained the meaning of “in the course of”, and appeared to give it a rather broad meaning, as least as broad as “à l’occasion de”: It may not always be easy to decide whether an expense has so arisen but it seems to me that the words “in the course of’’ in section 11(1)(cb) are not a reference to the time when the expenses are incurred but are used in the sense of “in connection with” or “incidental to” or “arising from” and refer to the process of carrying out or the things which must be undertaken to carry out the issuing or selling or borrowing for or in connection with which the expenses are incurred. ...

. — He incurred automobile expenses in connection with his employment, which expenses he calculated at $713.77. — He received from his employer $420.80 calculated on the basis of the mileage travelled. — In preparing his 1977 income tax return, he deducted the difference of $292.97 from his income. ... In connection with such expenses, the firm pays certain standard allowances, as follows: Meal Allowance A per diem allowance... may be claimed by staff members when out-of-town overnight on firm business. ...