Search - considered

(hereinafter the "Corporation"); (ii)            the Corporation specializes in the sale of computers and security systems; (iii)           to make its products more accessible, the Corporation offers its potential buyers whose main source of income is employment the opportunity to become distributors so that they may be considered "self-employed workers" for tax purposes and thus enjoy numerous benefits; (iv)           among those benefits, the Corporation held out to its potential buyers the prospect of being able to claim a business loss and thus receive a sizeable income tax refund; (v)            the Corporation subsequently took it upon itself to prepare its distributors' returns of income and ensured that the business losses claimed generated a sufficient tax refund to cover the acquisition cost of the property, in this instance a microcomputer, in their so-called first year of operation; (vi)           the information prepared by Revenu Québec explained in detail the procedure used and showed that the losses claimed consisted in large part of fictitious expenses and that they could not be deductible in principle since the distributor's work was in fact non-existent; (vii)          in theory, the purpose of the distributor's licence was to authorize those individuals to sell the Corporation's computer products and its distribution licences in exchange for a commission on sales; (viii)         the Corporation also made it possible for an individual to enjoy no-interest financing through a financial institution for a period not exceeding one year; (ix)            this method of financing a computer purchase was called the "Highway Concept"; (x)             the contract for the sale to the appellant by the Corporation of the licence and computer, as well as the document entitled "Distributor's Contract", were antedated to December 22, 1997; (xi)            an application form for a National Bank of Canada MasterCard was signed by the appellant on March 20, 1998; (xii)           the appellant kept no books or records; (xiii)          the appellant was unable to provide relevant supporting documents to justify a number of expenses claimed; (xiv)         there is no indication that the appellant carried on any activity whatever related to the sale of computers or licences or took steps to start up a business activity in 1997; (xv)          the appellant paid the sum of $1,200.00, including sales taxes, to acquire a distributor's licence, and the breakdown of the purchase price was as follows:                 Description                                                            Amount                 Licence vendor                                                              $500                 Vendor's sponsor                                                          $300                 Highway Corporation                                                 $400                 Total                                                                           $1,200 (xvi)         at the time he acquired his distributor's licence, the appellant received a kit which included the following items: a video cassette, a binder containing information on the "Highway Concept" and ten or so personalized business cards; (e)            in light of the above, the Minister concluded that the appellant had not operated a business nor had he started up a business activity during the 1997 taxation year; (f)             the appellant knowingly, or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence, made or participated in, assented to or acquiesced in the making of, a false statement or omission in the income tax return filed for the taxation year in issue, as a result of which the tax he would have been required to pay based on the information provided in that return was $1,300.94 less than the amount of tax actually payable for that year; (g)            consequently, in the notice of reassessment of July 19, 1999, for the taxation year in issue, the Minister assessed the appellant a penalty of $650.47 under subsection 163(2) of the Act. ...

(hereinafter the "Corporation"); (ii)            the Corporation specializes in the sale of computers and security systems; (iii)           to make its products more accessible, the Corporation offers its potential buyers whose main source of income is employment the opportunity to become distributors so that they may be considered "self-employed workers" for tax purposes and thus enjoy numerous benefits; (iv)           among those benefits, the Corporation held out to its potential buyers the prospect of being able to claim a business loss and thus receive a sizeable income tax refund; (v)            the Corporation subsequently took it upon itself to prepare its distributors' returns of income and ensured that the business losses claimed generated a sufficient tax refund to cover the acquisition cost of the property, in this instance a microcomputer, in their so-called first year of operation; (vi)           the information prepared by Revenu Québec explained in detail the procedure used and showed that the losses claimed consisted in large part of fictitious expenses and that they could not be deductible in principle since the distributor's work was in fact non-existent; (vii)          in theory, the purpose of the distributor's licence was to authorize those individuals to sell the Corporation's computer products and its distribution licences in exchange for a commission on sales; (viii)         the Corporation also made it possible for an individual to enjoy no-interest financing through a financial institution for a period not exceeding one year; (ix)            this method of financing a computer purchase was called the "Highway Concept"; (x)             the contract for the sale to the appellant by the Corporation of the licence and computer, as well as the document entitled "Distributor's Contract", indicate that the transaction took place on December 22, 1997; (xi)            an application to join a credit plan with the National Bank of Canada is dated February 27, 1998; (xii)           the purchase of the computer from the Corporation was made by MasterCard on March 3, 1998, but according to the credit card statement, payment was deferred until July 3, 1998 (see Appendix A); (xiii)          the Distributor's Contract and the application for financing were signed by the appellant; (xiv)         the appellant kept no books or records; (xv)          the appellant was unable to provide relevant supporting documents to justify a number of expenses claimed; (xvi)         there is no indication that the appellant carried on any activity whatever related to the sale of computers or licences or took steps to start up a business activity in 1997; (xvii)        the appellant paid the sum of $1,200.00 to acquire a distributor's licence and the breakdown of the purchase price was as follows:                 Description                                                            Amount                 Licence vendor                                                              $500                 Vendor's sponsor                                                          $300                 Highway Corporation                                                 $400                 Total                                                                           $1,200 (xviii)       at the time he acquired his distributor's licence, the appellant received a kit which included the following items: a video cassette, a binder containing information on the "Highway Concept" and ten or so personalized business cards; (e)            in light of the above, the Minister concluded that the appellant had not operated a business nor had he started up a business activity during the 1997 taxation year; (f)             the appellant knowingly, or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence, made or participated in, assented to or acquiesced in the making of, a false statement or omission in the income tax return filed for the taxation year in issue, as a result of which the tax he would have been required to pay based on the information provided in that return was $2,674.80 less than the amount of tax actually payable for that year; (g)            consequently, in the notice of reassessment of March 11, 1999, for the taxation year in issue, the Minister assessed the appellant a penalty of $1,337.40 under subsection 163(2) of the Act. ...

., and that amount, according to the accountant, was considered as an advance to the appellant until the end of 1997. ...

However, in Precision Gutters Ltd. v Minister of National Revenue [6], the fact that workers supplied their own hand tools was considered by the Federal Court of Appeal to be an indication that they were independent contractors. ...

The workers are contacted in most cases directly by e-mail, although they are considered the customers of DF. ...

He was not aware his father had made any financial arrangement with Philippe, and Michel did not know how he and his siblings could be considered to have loaned money to Philippe. ...

They cannot succeed in that purpose unless they are considered to be mandatory requirements and strictly enforced. ...

  [20]    The worker testified that he considered himself to be an employee during the period under appeal after those changes were initiated. ...

There was no money paid, and rent to be considered as donation to IFAARM ...

However, to the extent that income is properly considered as income by virtue of it being received as such from a Pakistan partnership source, it is not income in respect of which GST can be presumed to be assessed. ...