Search - connection

—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 made 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 amounts 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 18(1)(l), not be deductible in computing the taxpayer’s income for the year if the employment were a business carried on by him: (h) Travelling expenses. ... There is no doubt that for 1973 and 1974 the appellant met the first condition provided for in paragraph 8(1)(f), that is, he was “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 (i) travelling or personal or living expense allowances (A) expressly fixed in an Act of the Parliament of Canada, or (B) paid under the authority of the Treasury Board to a person who was appointed or whose services were engaged pursuant to the Inquiries Act, in respect of the discharge of his duties relating to such appointment or engagement, (ii) travelling and separation allowances received under service regulations aS a member of the Canadian Forces, (iii) representation or other special allowances received in respect of a period of absence from Canada as a person described in paragraph 250(1)(b), (c) or (d), (iv) representation or other special allowances received by an agentgeneral of a province in respect of a period while he was in Ottawa as the agent-general of the province, (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, (vi) reasonable allowances received by a minister or clergyman in charge of or ministering to a diocese, parish or congregation for expenses for transportation incident to the discharge of the duties of his office or employment, (vii) allowances (not in excess of reasonable amounts) for travelling expenses received by an employee (other than an employee employed in connection with the selling of property or negotiating of contracts for his employer) from his employer if they were computed by reference to time actually spent by the employee travelling away from (A} the municipality where the employer’s establishment at which the employee ordinarily worked or to which he ordinarily made his reports was located, and (B) the metropolitan area, if there is one, where that establishment was located, in the performance of the duties of his office or employment, (viii) such part of the aggregate of allowances received by a volunteer fireman from a government, municipality or other public authority for expenses incurred by him in respect of, in the course of, or by virtue of the discharge of his duties as a volunteer fireman, as does not exceed $300, or (ix) allowances (not in excess of reasonable amounts) received by an employee from his employer in respect of any child of the employee living away from the employee’s domestic establishment in the place where the employee is required by reason of his employment to live and in full-time attendance at a school in which the language primarily used for instruction is the official language of Canada primarily used by the employee if (A) a school suitable for that child primarily using that language of instruction is not available in the place where the employee is so required to live, and (B) the school that the child attends is the school closest to that place in which that language is the language primarily used for instruction; 6. (6) Employment at special work site. ...

In 1973 Mr Nemy commenced to act for a number of European investors in connection with the purchases by them of Manitoba farmland. ... Mr Nemy’s practice in connection with these purchases grew quickly and substantially. ...

Mr Leier stated that the time devoted by JP to work in connection with the leases averages about one hour per month or twelve hours per year. ... These are examples of services rendered by JP in connection with the leases. The activities of JP in connection with the leases must be treated, in so far as these cases are concerned, as activities of King George. ...

Thus in Trego v Hunt, [1896] AC 7, Lord Herschell emphasized that it was the connection with its customers that made the goodwill of a business. ... It is the whole advantage, whatever it may. be, of the reputation and connection of the firm which may have been built up by years of honest work or gained by lavish expenditure of money.” ... It is the benefit and advantage of the good name, reputation and connection of a business. ...

Thus in Trego v Hunt (1896), AC 7, Lord Herschell emphasized that it was the connection with its customers that made the goodwill of a business. ... It is the whole advantage, whatever it may be, of the reputation and connection of the firm which may have been built up by years of honest work or gained by lavish expenditure of money.” ... It is the benefit and advantage of the good name, reputation and connection of a business. ...

The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the investments contained in the appellant’s portfolio should not be considered to be inventory and submitted that there is at best only ‘‘a tenuous connection between the expenditures in question and the earning of income from these investments”. ...

There was uncontroverted evidence that no money passed from Sunnydene to Arames in payment of the debts and that, thus, no money or property passed from Arames to the appellant by way of loan in connection with the transactions. ...

He continued by referring to subsections 28(1) and 248(1) as follows: 28. (1) For the purpose of computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year from a farming or fishing business, the income from the business for that year may, if the taxpayer so elects, be computed in accordance with a method, in this section referred to as the “cash” method, whereby the income therefrom for that year shall be deemed to be an amount equal to the aggregate of (a) and to paraphrase that, that is trading receipts as you know, and (b) such amount, if any, as may be specified by the taxpayer in respect of the business in his return of income under this part for the year, not exceeding the fair market value at the end of the year of livestock (leaving out a few words) owned by him at that time in connection with the business. 248. (1) “Cost amount” to a taxpayer of any property at any time means, except as expressly otherwise provided in this Act (c) where the property was property described in an inventory of the taxpayer, its value at that time as determined for the purpose of computing his income. ...

I recognize that the subject matter of the transaction is raw land and that there is some connection between the appellant’s ordinary occupation and the transaction in question. ...