Search - considered

  [8]               The facts on which the Minister relied in thus confirming the assessments in the CPP case (2011-689(CPP)) are set out in paragraph 9 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal as follows:   (a)                 the Appellant was in the business of cleaning commercial properties; (admitted) (b)                the Appellant obtained the clients (hereinafter “the Client”); (denied) (c)                 the share structure of the Appellant, in January 2006, was as follows: Ansar         25% Connie       25% Kary          25% Denise        25%  (admitted) (d)                the share structure of the Appellant changed in mid 2006 to: Ansar         50% Connie       50%  (admitted) (e)                 the Workers were hired as labourers and their duties included cleaning, mopping, sweeping, dusting, wiping, vacuuming and garbage collection;  (denied) (f)                  the Workers did not enter in a written contract with the Appellant; (admitted) (g)                 the Workers performed their services at the Client’s premises; (admitted) (h)                 the Workers were hired on a continuous basis; (denied) (i)                   the Appellant paid the Workers on a monthly basis; (denied) (j)                  the Appellant determined the Workers’ wage rates; (denied) (k)                the Workers did not bid for work; (admitted) (l)                   the Workers did not invoice the Appellant; (admitted) (m)               the Appellant set the Workers’ hours of work; (denied) (n)                 the Workers worked during the “off hours” of the Client’s business; (admitted) (o)                the Workers worked whatever hours were required to complete the work; (admitted) (p)                the Appellant retained the right to control the Workers; (denied) (q)                the Appellant trained the Workers; (admitted) (r)                  the Workers did not have specific licenses, certifications or designations relating to the job; (admitted) (s)                 the Appellant instructed the Workers on the work to be done and the duties to be performed; (admitted) (t)                  the Appellant reviewed the Workers’ work; (denied) (u)                 some of the Workers worked in groups; (admitted) (v)                 the Appellant, through it’s agreement with the Client, established the Workers’ priorities and deadlines; (admitted) (w)               the Workers represented the Appellant while performing their services; (admitted) (x)                 the Workers could not hire their own helpers or replace themselves; (denied) (y)                 the Client provided all of the tools and equipment required; (admitted) (z)                 the Workers did not provide any tools or equipment; (denied) (aa)             the Client provided all of the supplies required; (admitted) (bb)            the Workers did not incur any expenses in the performance of their duties; (admitted) (cc)             the Workers did not provide their own liability insurance; (admitted) (dd)            the Workers did not incur any capital costs of a business; (admitted) (ee)             the Workers did not have a chance of profit or a risk of loss; (admitted) (ff)                the Workers did not present themselves as their own business presence; (denied) (gg)             the service performed by the Workers was for the benefit of the Appellant; (denied) (hh)             the Workers did not work for others while performing services for the Appellant; (denied) (ii)                 some Workers considered themselves to be employees while performing services for the Appellant; (denied)   (jj)                the Workers were not in business for themselves while performing services for the Appellant; (denied) (kk)            the Appellant withheld and remitted payroll deductions for part of the 2006 year; (denied) (ll)                 the Appellant’s income tax return included the following expenses: (denied)     2006 2007 Salaries and wages $16,754 $17,584 Management salaries $44,000 $16,000   (mm)         wages paid by the Appellant to the Workers, for the period January 1, 2006 to January 31, 2009, were as follows:   (denied)     2006 2007 2008 2009 Ansar $4,250 16,000     Connie $4,250       Denise $17,750       Kary $17,750       Mora $4,500 $2,837     Pierre-Antoine $12,246 $6,839 $6,540 $627 Khan   $458     Gillani   $4,380     Yfate   $787       [9]               By Notice of Assessment dated June 5, 2009, the Appellant was assessed for, among other things, employment insurance premiums in the amount of $619.34 for 2007, in respect of Michael Dagnew (hereinafter “Dagnew”), Gillani, Khan, Gibran Khan (hereinafter “Gibran”), Mora, Pierre‑Antoine and Yfate ...   [14]          The facts on which the Minister relied in thus confirming the assessments for 2007, 2008 and 2009 are set out in paragraph 7 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal as follows:   (a)                 the Appellant was in the business of cleaning commercial properties; (admitted) (b)                the Appellant obtained the clients (hereinafter “the Client”); (denied) (c)                 the share structure of the Appellant, in January 2006, was as follows: Ansar Bacchus       25% Connie Bacchus      25% Kary McLeod        25% Denise McLeod      25% (admitted) (d)                the share structure of the Appellant changed in mid 2006 to: Ansar Bacchus       50% Connie Bacchus      50% (admitted) (e)                 the Workers were hired as labourers and their duties included cleaning, mopping, sweeping, dusting, wiping, vacuuming and garbage collection; (denied) (f)                  the workers did not enter in a written contract with the Appellant; (admitted) (g)                 the Workers performed their services at the Client’s premises; (admitted) (h)                 the Workers were hired on a continuous basis; (denied) (i)                   the Appellant paid the Workers on a monthly basis; (denied) (j)                  the Appellant determined the Workers’ wage rates; (denied) (k)                the Workers did not bid for work; (admitted) (l)                   the Workers did not invoice the Appellant; (admitted) (m)               the Appellant set the Workers’ hours of work; (denied) (n)                 the Workers worked during the “off hours” of the Client’s business; (admitted) (o)                the Workers worked whatever hours were required to complete the work; (admitted) (p)                the Appellant retained the right to control the Workers; (denied) (q)                the Appellant trained the Workers; (admitted) (r)                  the Workers did not have specific licenses, certifications or designations relating to the job; (admitted) (s)                 the Appellant instructed the Workers on the work to be done and the duties to be performed; (admitted) (t)                  the Appellant reviewed the Workers’ work; (denied) (u)                 some of the Workers worked in groups; (admitted) (v)                 the Appellant, through it’s agreement with the Client, established the Workers’ priorities and deadlines; (admitted) (w)               the Workers represented the Appellant while performing their services; (admitted) (x)                 the Workers could not hire their own helpers or replace themselves; (denied) (y)                 the Client provided all of the tools and equipment required; (admitted) (z)                 the Workers did not provide any tools or equipment; (denied) (aa)             the Client provided all of the supplies required; (admitted) (bb)            the Workers did not incur any expenses in the performance of their duties; (denied) (cc)             the Workers did not provide their own liability insurance; (admitted) (dd)            the Workers did not incur any capital costs of a business;   (admitted) (ee)             the Workers did not have a chance of profit or a risk of loss; (admitted) (ff)                the Workers did not present themselves as their own business presence; (denied) (gg)             the service performed by the Workers was for the benefit of the Appellant; (denied) (hh)             the Workers did not work for others while performing services for the Appellant; (denied) (ii)                 some Workers considered themselves to be employees while performing services for the Appellant; (denied) (jj)                the Workers were not in business for themselves while performing services for the Appellant; (denied) (kk)            the Appellant withheld and remitted payroll deductions for part of the 2006 year; (denied) (ll)                 the Appellant’s income tax return included the following expenses: (denied)     2006 2007 Salaries and wages $16,754 $17,584 Management salaries $44,000 $16,000         Item (mm) continues on the next page.         ...

These circumstances must be taken into account, but must be considered against an objective "reasonably prudent person" standard. …   …   [52] Parliament did not require that directors be subject to an absolute liability for the remittances of their corporations. ... Justice Rothstein considered it relevant to note in his concurring reasons in McKinnon, supra:   1 ...

Similarly, an objection filed after the tax return is assessed cannot be considered to meet the requirement that the taxpayer choose in his or her tax return. ... The election required under this transitional rule was considered in Anderson v. ...

"   [7]               To determine whether a proposed additional portion of discovery evidence should be allowed in because it “qualifies or explains” pursuant to subsection 100(3) of the Rules, Chief Justice Rip, at paragraph 4, summarized the factors he considered as follows:   •         continuity of thought or subject-matter;   •        the purpose of introducing the evidence in the first instance and whether it can stand on its own; and   •        fairness in the sense that the evidence should, so far as possible, represent the complete answer of the witness on the subject-matter of the inquiry so far as the witness has expressed it in the answers he has given on his examination for discovery ... I think that they considered that that increased their security, being a community-driven congregation. 396 Q. ...

  [4]              Therefore, the only issue is the following: were the salaries of Pierre Trudeau and his spouse Louise Nadon considered eligible expenditures? ...   [21]         The appellant repeatedly insisted during the examination by the respondent's representatives that they should have considered the prior records where the president and his spouse's salaries were fully allowed, in particular for 2003 and 2004 ...

The CRA considered the remaining payments to be arrears payments and applied those payments to the Company’s outstanding liability beginning with the first reporting period of the Company in respect of which it owed an amount ... The Appellant considered the GST charged on the Company’s sales to be part of the Company’s revenue. ...

This must be considered.   [18]          In re-direct, he said that his projections were based on the economy at the time they were made ...   [19]          They considered paying down the debt and making a profit but they did not get around to doing it ...

The question is whether, having considered all of the evidence, I can reasonably conclude that Transport would have entered into a similar contract with a non-related worker ... While simply performing a task without pay on behalf of her employer is hardly enough to show that parties at arm’s length would not have agreed to a substantially similar contract, it is a significant factor that most be considered in the larger employment context ...

The following criteria should be considered: the profit and loss experience in past years, the taxpayer’s training, the taxpayer’s intended course of action, the capability of the venture as capitalized to show a profit after charging capital cost allowance. ... It is clear that an activity may be considered a commercial activity well in advance of the stage of profitability. ...

In deciding as the Minister did, the Minister relied on the following assumptions of fact: (a)               the Appellant operated The Fast Cash Company; (b)              the Appellant operated a cheque cashing and short-term loan business; (c)               the Appellant operated out of various locations in Manitoba: (d)              the sole shareholder of the Appellant was Len Thompson (hereinafter "the Shareholder"); (e)               the Worker was the common-law spouse of the Shareholder; (f)                the Worker was hired as an administrative assistant; (g)               the Worker's duties included assisting in office setup, interior design, travel, hiring staff, training staff, assisting in producing a policy manual, ordering inventory, customer relations, typing, filing, paper work, answering phones and computer work; (h)               the Worker performed her services at the Appellant's various premises; (i)                 the Worker had been working for the Appellant since the year 2000; (j)                 the Worker earned a set salary of $750.00 per week; (k)               the Appellant paid the Worker by cheque, on a bi-weekly basis; (l)                 the Appellant determined the Worker's wage rate; (m)            the Worker's wage rate was reasonable; (n)               the Appellant originally withheld premiums and contributions from the Worker's wages; (o)              the Appellant issued T4s to the Worker for the 2001 and 2002 years; (p)              the Worker did not provide unpaid services to the Appellant; (q)              the Worker took vacation leave; (r)                the Worker received the following earnings from the Appellant: 2001 $20,769 2002 $14,095 2003 $37,950 2004 $42,610 (s)               the Worker worked full-time for the Appellant; (t)                 the Worker normally worked during the Appellant's business hours, Monday to Friday; (u)               the Appellant determined the Worker's hours and days of work; (v)               the Worker worked along side the Shareholder; (w)             the Worker's hours and days of work were reasonable; (x)               the Shareholder made the major decisions for the Appellant; (y)               the Worker was under the direction and control of the Appellant; (z)               the Appellant instructed the Worker; (aa)      the Appellant assigned work to the Worker; (bb)             the Appellant supervised the Worker; (cc)              the Worker reported directly to the Shareholder; (dd)             the Worker could not hire her own helpers of (sic) replace herself; (ee)                the Worker informed the Appellant of any leave requirements; (ff)      the Appellant provided all of the tools and equipment required including the work locations and a furnished office; (gg)               the Worker did not pay for the use of the Appellant's equipment; (hh)                the Worker did not incur any operational expenses in the performance of her duties; (ii)          the Appellant reimbursed the Worker for any expenses incurred; (jj)          the Worker did not have a chance of profit or risk of loss; (kk)               the Worker did not sign loans for the Appellant's business; (ll)         the Worker did not have money invested in the Appellant's business; (mm)     the Worker stated that she was not treated differently then (sic) the arm's length employees as an arm's length employee would perform the same services and be paid the same wage; (nn)              the Appellant stated that the Worker was treated differently as an arm's length employee would not have been hired to perform these duties and the Worker's wage was high; (oo)              the Minister considered all of the relevant facts that were made available to the Minister, including the remuneration paid, the terms and conditions, the duration and the nature and importance of the work performed, and (pp)              the Minister was satisfied that it was reasonable to conclude that the worker and the Appellant would have entered into a substantially similar contract of employment if they had been dealing with each other at arm's length. ... Wiebe wrote to Len Thompson and outlined what she considered her role in 3928366 to be (Exhibit A-7), with a number of policy and physical layout recommendations. ...