Search - considered

It is fair to say that a taxpayer who incurs expenses to restore a rundown building incurs capital expenditures which would not be considered to be routine maintenance. ...

He has a community college diploma in electronics and, during the first two periods in question, he was considered an apprentice. ...

Gitelman (the mandator) to her son (the mandatary) in the context of a mandate under which he was to use the money to fulfil an obligation she had undertaken pursuant a contractual arrangement with her son's in-laws, namely, to pay half the wedding costs; thus, giving this money to her son could not be considered a transfer under section 160 of the Act, since it was used solely to benefit Ms.  ...

In his view, the share options constituted contributed surplus but he considered that it was not necessary to use this label on the balance sheet because all of the appellant's equity, other than retained earnings, was contributed surplus and nothing would be gained by the use of the term. [29]     In my view, it is significant that the appellant did not suggest that GAAP required the use of the terms "surplus" or "contributed surplus" when describing such items on the balance sheet. ...

  [3]   Also, more recently, the Courts have considered the intention of the parties as to their relationship and, in certain cases, have decided that intention can be important, especially when some tests point to a contract of service and other tests do not ...

That situation, as is common ground here, was that rural mail couriers were considered to be mail contractors and not postal employees. ...

However, I do not intend to rely heavily on these agreements, as the stated intention therein, considered in the appropriate factual context, must in any event be taken, absent evidence to the contrary, to reflect the legal relationship between the parties. ...

The assumption of facts upon which the Minister also was said to have relied in paragraph 9 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal are as follows:   a)         the Appellant operated a pest control business;           b)         the share structure of the Appellant was as follows:   Tom Schultz                 41%     (son) Gladys Schultz              59%     (mother)   c)         Tom Schultz and Gladys Schultz were the directors of the Appellant;   d)         the Worker was the son of Gladys Schultz;   e)         the Worker and the Appellant were related to each other within the meaning of the Income tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5 th Supp.) c.1, as amended (the " Act ");   f)          the Worker performed the duties of an exterminator;   g)         the Worker’s duties included pest control services to residential and industrial clients;   h)         the Worker had been working for the Appellant since August of 2000;   i)          the Worker earned a set wage of $2,000.00 per month which was gradually increased to $2,6000.00 per month;   j)          the Appellant paid the Worker on a semi-monthly basis;   k)         the Appellant determined the Worker’s wage rate;   l)          the Appellant’s arm’s length employee was also paid a monthly wage;   m)        the Worker also received bonuses as follows:   June 2001        $3,500.00 June 2002        $4,000.00 June 2003        $5,000.00   n)         the Worker’s wage rate was comparable to industry standards;   o)         the Worker’s wage rate was reasonable;   p)         the Appellant issued T4s to the Worker containing the following earnings:   2001    $29,432 2002    $31,346 2003    $36,122   q)         the Worker took paid vacation leave;   r)          none of the Appellant’s employees, including the Worker, received overtime pay;   s)         the Worker had not provided unpaid services to the Appellant;   t)          the Appellant paid the Worker on a regular and consistent basis;   u)         if the Appellant’s revenue was low the Worker would still be paid;   v)         if the Worker were unable to perform his services for a period of time he would still get paid, however, this did not occur during the period under review;   w)        the Worker normally worked from 8:00AM to 4:00PM;   x)         the Worker was also on-call;   y)         the Appellant determined the Worker’s hours of work;   z)         the Worker worked an average of 40 hours per week;   aa)       the Worker’s hours were not recorded or monitored;   bb)       the Appellant’s arm’s length employee’s hours were not recorded or monitored;   cc)       the Appellant’s retained the right to control the Worker;   dd)       the Appellant assigned work to the Worker;   ee)       the Appellant provided the Worker with a list of duties;   ff)         the Worker was not supervised as he was fully trained;   gg)       the Worker could not come and go as he pleased;   hh)       when the Worker was away from work other employees performed his duties;   ii)         the Worker performed his services at the Appellant’s client’s premises;   jj)         the Worker did not incur any expenses in the performance of his duties;   kk)       the Worker was employed under a contract of service by the Appellant;   ll)         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   mm)     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 ...

Each case must be considered on its own merits. The Court must examine the evidence of the taxpayer with respect to household expenditures to determine which expenses, if any, are the vital household expenses that may be excluded from the reach of section 160. ...

Due diligence   [16]     What remains to be considered is the due diligence defence set out in subsection 323(3). ...