Search - considered

In so reassessing the Appellant, the Minister relied on the following allegations of fact: (a) the Appellant was an employee of Newfoundland Offshore (Nodeco), an employer who was situated at the Bull Arm work site in Newfoundland and was involved in the construction of a gravity based offshore drilling platform for the drilling program Hibernia; (b) the Hibernia work site has been classified as a “special work site” pursuant to a decision of Revenue Canada Taxation, and all duties performed by employees at the site are considered to be of a temporary nature; (c) due to the lack of sufficient accommodations at the work site, employees who agreed to live off the site and to provide their own living accommodations were provided by the employer with an allowance of $40.00 per day for board and lodging; (d) in December 1992, the Appellant’s address, as well as that of his spouse, was P.O. ...

That combined with the fact that they acknowledge that the injury that would give rise to the payments from National Life Assurance Company were work related, the only question is, in my opinion, can the National Life Assurance Company payments be considered to be payments made pursuant to paragraph 5(1) of the R.C.M.P. ...

It was applied to eliminate the loan at the Bank and consequently, cannot be considered as having been received in any year other than 1992. ...

I conclude from the evidence that the Appellant entered into these transactions both because he considered the product to be a marketable one which could produce profits for him, and also for the benefit of the tax deferral which he stood to obtain. ...

This is a benefit for which the company pays a monthly premium to the Maritime Life Insurance Company and is, under Revenue Canada rules, considered a taxable benefit. ...

In making the reassessments, the Minister considered the following allegations of fact to be true: [TRANSLATION] (a) since 1988, the appellant has always reported rental losses on his condo based on the following income and expenses: TAXATION YEAR GROSS EXPENSES NET LOSS INCOME 1988 $5,600 $14,516 $8,916 1989 $7,075 $13,638 $6,563 1990 $5,105 $16,673 $11,568 1991 $8,104 $18,326 10,222 1992 $6,182 $15,097 8,915 1993 $700 $2,578 $1,878 1993 terminal loss $30,000 (b) the gross income has been declining since the 1991 taxation year; (c) the carrying charges were higher than the gross rental income; (d) the appellant’s primary intention when he acquired the condo was to be able to live there when he retired; (e) the appellant did not do what was necessary to remedy the situation in order to make renting his condo profitable; (f) the appellant invested very little of his own money, since the mortgage was for $110,000, or 95 percent of the cost of the assets; (g) the appellant had no reasonable expectation of making a profit from the rental of real estate during any of the 1991, 1992 and 1993 taxation years; (h) the expenses claimed by the appellant were not incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property, but were rather the appellant’s personal or living expenses; (i) the appellant has not shown that he incurred expenses for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property for the 1991, 1992 and 1993 taxation years; (j) the appellant has not shown that he incurred a terminal loss as a result of selling real estate used for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property for the 1993 taxation year. ...

Analysis and Conclusion: This issue was considered by Judge Rip in Soper v. ...

During the 90 days following that assessment and during the subsequent one-year period, there was no other written communication between the taxpayer and the CRA that could be considered to be a request for an extension of the 90-day period. [9] This Court is therefore compelled to strike the applicant’s notice of appeal. ...

McArthur of this Court reduced the expenses claimed to what he considered reasonable amounts and allowed certain losses for the 1989 and 1990 years. ...

H.M. this Court considered earlier jurisprudence and confirmed the basic principle that it is the duty of the Minister to assess, and if necessary reassess, taxpayers’ returns so as to apply correctly the law to the facts. ...