Search - connection

The affidavit states (inter alia) that the appellant resides in Paris, France; that there are facts which, unless admitted, can only be established by the appellant ‘s testimony; that counsel endeavoured to arrange with respondent’s solicitor for a joint admission of these facts so as to avoid the necessity of obtaining the appellant’s testimony in connection therewith and that he was advised recently that the proposed joint admission cannot be made; that counsel endeavoured to ascertain if there were any probability that the appellant might have to come to Canada at an early date and that he has been informed that there is no such probability; that the cost and inconvenience to the appellant of having to make a trip from France to Canada to give evidence would be much greater than the cost or inconvenience of having to take her evidence on a commission or through letters of request in France; that Mr. ...

It is further agreed that when the first instalment under this policy becomes due, as above, the person or persons legally entitled to receive said first instalment shall have the option of commuting all instalments into a single cash payment of SEVENTY-ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS and the payment of this amount shall completely discharge the Company from all liability in connection with this contract; provided always that this option cannot be exercised by the beneficiary or payee unless the owner shall have filed with the Company a written request to that effect, or shall have so expressed his desire by will. ...

Clause (d) provides that the business assessment of a person carrying on a business such as the clause describes, in respect of land occupied or used by him in such business for distribution premises, storage or warehouse for such goods, wares and merchandise, or for an office used in connection with the said business, is to be for a sum equal to 75 per cent. of the assessed value of the land so occupied or used. ...

It is never necessary to show a causal connection between an expenditure and a receipt. ...

. / 1714862 Alberta Ltd – Production Number A00157; b) Reporting Memorandum from Tim Kirby (Felesky Flynn LLP) and Sean Zubrychyj (Felesky Flynn LLP) to Bob Hahn (H&H LLP) re: sale to Tecate Northern Trust dated July 31, 2017 – Production Number A00313; c) Reporting Memorandum from Tim Kirby (Felesky Flynn LLP) and Sean Zubrychyj (Felesky Flynn LLP) to Bob Hahn (H&H LLP) re: sale to Tecate Northern Trust dated July 31, 2017 – Production Number A00317; d) Reporting Memorandum from Tim Kirby (Felesky Flynn LLP) and Sean Zubrychyj (Felesky Flynn LLP) to Bob Hahn (H&H LLP) re: Repurchase of Shares of 1714862 and Fitter and Repayment of Promissory Note dated September 11, 2017 – Production Number A00320; e) Reporting Memorandum from Tim Kirby (Felesky Flynn LLP) and Sean Zubrychyj (Felesky Flynn LLP) to Margaret and Louis Stack and Hahn (H&H LLP) re: Repurchase of Shares of 1714862 and Fitter and Repayment of Promissory Note dated September 11, 2017 – Production Number A00323. [3] Essentially, these 5 documents constitute 3 documents because the two reporting memoranda are identical; they were produced repeatedly because each was sent twice by distinct covering email. [4] The Appellants sum up their opposition to disclosing anything but the redacted versions on the following basis: The Minister assumed that Margaret and Louis Stack, the Appellants, retained Felesky Flynn LLP as legal counsel in connection with the transactions at issue; The documents over which the Stacks have claimed solicitor-client privilege are, on their face, for the purpose of providing legal advice. ...

He was also able to cross-check that information with the records from the mailing centre. [18] I agree with the appellant that the evidence establishing continuity of the notice of assessment’s path from preparation through transmission could have been brought into sharper relief during the examination-in-chief and that the connection between the appellant’s notice of assessment and cycle 1927 would have benefitted from more explicit elucidation. ...

Analysis Concept of tax shelter   [5]              The term  “tax shelter” is defined as follows in section 237.1 of the Act: [1]  “tax shelter” means (a) a gifting arrangement described by paragraph (b) of the definition “gifting arrangement”; and (b) a gifting arrangement described by paragraph (a) of the definition “gifting arrangement”, or a property (including any right to income) other than a flow-through share or a prescribed property, in respect of which it can reasonably be considered, having regard to statements or representations made or proposed to be made in connection with the gifting arrangement or the property, that, if a person were to enter into the gifting arrangement or acquire an interest in the property, at the end of a particular taxation year that ends within four years after the day on which the gifting arrangement is entered into or the interest is acquired,  (i) the total of all amounts each of which is (A) an amount, or a loss in the case of a partnership interest, represented to be deductible in computing the person’s income for the particular year or any preceding taxation year in respect of the gifting arrangement or the interest in the property (including, if the property is a right to income, an amount or loss in respect of that right that is stated or represented to be so deductible), or (B) any other amount stated or represented to be deemed under this Act to be paid on account of the person’s tax payable, or to be deductible in computing the person’s income, taxable income or tax payable under this Act, for the particular year or any preceding taxation year in respect of the gifting arrangement or the interest in the property, other than an amount so stated or represented that is included in computing a loss described in clause (A), would equal or exceed (ii) the amount, if any, by which (A) the cost to the person of the property acquired under the gifting arrangement, or of the interest in the property at the end of the particular year, determined without reference to section 143.2,      would exceed (B) the total of all amounts each of which is the amount of any prescribed benefit that is expected to be received or enjoyed, directly or indirectly, in respect of the property acquired under the gifting arrangement, or of the interest in the property, by the person or another person with whom the person does not deal at arm’s length. ... In that decision, Ryer J.A. wrote that the property contemplated by the definition of tax shelter is each and every property that is offered for sale to prospective purchasers. [5] The judge added that the definition requires that to conclude a tax shelter exists, statements or representations must be made, at some time, in connection with the property that is offered for sale. [6] S tatements must have been made prior to any actual sale by the person who proposes to sell ...

The taxpayer in that case did not attend any classes at the Canadian campus nor was there any other connection to the Canadian campus ...   [12]          In Cammidge and Robinson there was no indication that the taxpayer attended any classes at the Canadian locations of the University of Phoenix nor was there any indication that there was any other connection between the Canadian locations and the taxpayers. ...

In this connection, I would like to refer to the following passage of the Income Tax Appeal Board decision in the case of Geoffrey Hogan v. ... It cannot be, in my view, seriously disputed that the advances or loans that could not be repaid to the appellant by I.C.B.I. and Lobstick were made in connection with business deals or transactions of a class usually entered into by the appellant. ...