Search - connection

His employer did not pay any of his expenses. 3.2 The appellant claimed various expenses for the years in question, part of which the respondent refused to allow, as set out in the following table: 1972 1973 1974 1975 Automobile expenses claimed $1,154.00 $1,564.00 $3,038.00 $2,925.00 refused 732.00 1,176.50 2,357.75 2,410.10 allowed $ 422.00 387.50 670.25 514.90 Entertainment expenses claimed $1,000.00 $4,700.00 $4,500.00 refused 800.00 4,400.00 4,200.00 allowed $ 200.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 3.3 There was also an expense of $2,595.80 for 1973 in connection with a restaurant owned by the appellant. ... —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 to 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; 4.2 Comments 4.2.1 There is no doubt that the appellant satisfies the conditions set out in paragraph 8(1)(f). ...

In reviewing this matter, the Board quotes the applicable portions of the Income Tax Act: 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 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; (2) Except 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. ... The predecessor of paragraph 8(1)(f) of the “New” Act was subsection 11(6) of the “Old” Act, which stated as follows: Where a person in a taxation year was employed in connection with the selling of property or negotiating of contracts for his employer, and (a) under the contract of employment was required to pay his own expenses, (b) was ordinarily required to carry on the duties of his employment away from his employer's place of business, (c) 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 (d) was not in receipt of an allowance for travelling expenses in respect of the taxation year that was, by virtue of subparagraph (v) of paragraph (b) of section 5, not included in computing his income, there may be deducted in computing his income for the year, notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (h) of subsection (1) of section 12, 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. ...

In the absence of vouchers or records of the appellant’s expenses, the assessor, on the basis of the vouchers for purchases made by the appellant at ALD of Canada, arrived at an average of 3,000 miles a year travelled by the appellant in connection with his car wash business. ... The full amount of the appellant’s claim should not be allowed because of the absence of proper records but in my opinion, and it can be only that, the facts would indicate that the appellant in connection with his car wash business travelled more than to and from ALD of Canada and the assessor’s estimate based on the appellant’s purchase vouchers which are not a proper record of the appeilant’s travel, is low and does not take into account other comparable trips directly related to the appellant’s business. ...

One of the clients’ required services in connection with a municipal rezoning application, another the registration of a condominium building. ... In referring to the case of Marc E Decelles v MNR, [1978] CTC 2018; 78 DTC 1019, counsel urged upon the Board that the lesson to be taken from that decision was that had the appellant Decelles been in business rather than employed, his election expenses would have been deductible as indicated at pages 2018 and 1020 respectively: “Consequently the appellant, as an employee, cannot deduct the expenses incurred during his electoral campaign..,, Counsel for the respondent in reply suggested that no such wide meaning could be attached to the Decelles decision (supra); and that this appellant’s case failed on two grounds—first, that there had been no reasonable expectation of income from the expense incurred (any income which might be attributed thereto could only be seen as having the remotest possible connection); and second, that if the expense had any business merit, it was only as a capital and not as a Current expenditure. ...

Plumbing and electrical connections are then installed and a skirting is arranged around the trailer so as to hide its understructure. ... He explained that the lean-tos were built close enough to the trailer to allow for installation between the trailer wall and the lean-to and that connection was principally the joining of the roof of the lean-to with that of the trailer and thickly covered with tar. ... It was an empty hulk of a residence, albeit with wheels on it, but with no electrical connections, no telephone connections, no water or sewerage connections, and no method of heating. ...

The issue is identical in both situations — whether two amounts of $25,000 each advanced or guaranteed by the appellant in connection with the proposed production of movie or television films were business or investment losses. The first of these amounts was the appellant’s 25% share of a $100,000 bank loan guarantee made in 1972 in connection with a matter referred to at the hearing as the film “I Never Promised You A Rose Garden” (hereinafter called “Rose Garden”), which amount ($25,000) he repaid personally in 1975. ... (“Jacot Inc.”), allegedly in connection with the production of a series based on the life of the pirate Captain Morgan (hereinafter referred to as “Captain Morgan”). ...

Between 1974 and 1977, Luigi Borrelli talked to the City of Windsor Planning Department “a couple of times” in connection with the construction of a senior citizens’ home. ... He had no plans drawn up and had no experience whatsoever in the operation of a nursing home, or what was required in connection therewith. It was in 1975 that he learned from the Planning Department that he needed access to the Lauzon Road for the purpose of sewer and water connections. ...

The appellant objected, and in support of the appeal counsel for the appellant contends that the liquor licence transfer fees of $24,489 paid by the appellant in 1969 were deductible pursuant to paragraph 12(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act as expenses in connection with the carrying on of its business. ... Counsel for the appellant, in support of his argument that the liquor licence transfer fee was an expense made in connection with carrying on its business and deductible under paragraph 12(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act made a distinction between the initial cost of obtaining a licence, which was regarded as a capital expenditure, and the costs of maintaining or renewing a licence which, as I have already pointed out, were accepted by the Minister as expense items. ... In reaching this conclusion I have not lost sight of the fact that there does exist in connection with the holding of licences an intangible enduring advantage to licence holders which arises, not from the licence itself, but from the reasonable expectation or hope that the licence will be renewed for an economically reasonable period of time. ...

The evidence and other material before the Board in this matter indicate: that Doricott, Eusanio and Brotherston started up, “as people do”, as a small contracting business working from their individual houses and basements and storing their building materials, tools and miscellaneous equipment with whoever had the most space to store it; that they incorporated their construction company Debco on October 10, 1961 as already mentioned; that, when they found they were being successful in 1962, “they acquired a piece of land on which to build a building to set up business”; that the construction of a building was commenced in December, 1962 not only for the use of their construction business but also to accommodate a few tenants; that Debco moved into unit No 3 of the 5 units in the building in February, 1963 (it thereby occupied a floor area of about 1/5 of 6,500 square feet or say 1,300 square feet); that, as business increased in the course of time, Debco found that it needed a larger building and also outside space for storing its building materials, forms, equipment, and so on, which it did not have in connection with its first building mentioned above and, accordingly, moved completely out of that building on or about April 15, 1966 (it was then making use of unit No 1 of the said building) after an occupancy of about 3 years and one or two months; that Debco then moved directly into and took over, as lessee, a 2-storey building with ample outside storage for its requirements which Debco, itself, had constructed in 1966 for its shareholders Eusanio and Brotherston, as owners, containing 6,800 square feet situated very roughly about 75 feet south of the 5-unit building which it had sold as outlined above; that Debco was successful almost immediately in renting unit No 1 after it had vacated the premises; that Debco was approached by one of its tenants in its fiscal period extending from September 30, 1966 to September 30, 1967 who offered to buy the property and, apparently, it immediately decided to accept the offer so made; that the particulars of the sale (taken from the notice of appeal) are as follows — The total cost of the buildings sold was $24,376.73 and the sale price was $42,000.00, resulting in a gain of $17,623.27 in addition to which the land sold for $6,000 cost $4,000, resulting in a total gain of $19,623.27. ... In the above connection, it should be noted that Mr Jackson, in cross-examining David Brotherston, president of Debco and the only witness called on its behalf, set out to obtain from him particulars of the real estate transactions which he had had with Debco and his two co-shareholders Doricott and Eusanio. ... The above witness generally made it clear to the Board that Debco was actually using, as lessee, part of the lands on which the second building was later constructed by its shareholders Eusanio and Brotherston for the storage of materials, forms, and so on, in between construction jobs, and that there was no land available in connection with the first building for that purpose. 2. ...

He further contends that the disbursements did not concern, or were not in connection with, the business carried on by the appellant. ... He also referred the Board to paragraph 11(1)(ab) which states: (ab) an amount paid by the taxpayer in the year for investigating the suitability of a site for a building or other structure planned by the taxpayer for use in connection with a business carried on by him. ... According to him, these expenses were not paid in connection with the appellant’s business, but were expenses of the development companies, namely, Compass Investments (Ontario) Limited and Foundation Developments Limited. ...