Search - convention

Revah was found to have been a resident of both Canada and the United States, the appellant felt that the tie-breaker rules in article 4 of the Convention between Canada and the United States of America with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital (hereinafter the “Convention”) made him an American resident during the years in dispute ... The respondent also felt that if the rules in article 4 of the Convention must be applied, the appellant was a Canadian and not an American resident under those rules ...

The deduction claimed by the Appellant represents the amount of pension income that is exempt from Canadian tax pursuant to the Canada-United States Convention with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital [1] (Treaty). ... (f)         any social assistance payment made on the basis of a means, needs or income test and included because of clause 56(1)(a)(i)(A) or paragraph 56(1)(u) in computing the taxpayer’s income for the year or any amount that is (i)         an amount exempt from income tax in Canada because of a provision contained in a tax convention or agreement with another country that has the force of law in Canada,... ... Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada     [1]            Canada-United States Convention with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital, 26 September 1980, Can TS 1984 No. 15 (entered into force 16 August 1984). [2]            Transcript at p. 20, lines 26-27. [3]            Transcript at p. 19, lines 4-5; Transcript at p. 20, lines 12-21; see also CRA memorandum, Exhibit R‑1, Tab 6, pages 1-2, and United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund, Practical Steps, Exhibit R‑1, Tab 6, p. 35. [4]           Exhibit A‑1, 4th page (Appendix B) and CRA Memorandum, Exhibit R‑1, Tab 6, p. 2. [5]            Reply at par. 5(e); Exhibit R‑1, Tab 6, second to last page. [6]            Reply at par. 5(g); Exhibit R‑1, Tab 6, third to last page. [7]            Transcript at p. 30, lines 17-19. [8]            Transcript at p. 32, lines 6-9; Transcript at p. 33, lines 23-27. [9]            Exhibit R‑1, Tab 1. [10]           Reply at par. 5(h); Transcript at p. 74, lines 10-14; Exhibit R‑1, Tab 4, last page. [11]           Reply at par. 2 and 5(i). [12]           Transcript at p. 88, lines 6-14. [13]           Coblentz, supra, at par. 30 (DTC p. 6536; C.T.C. p. 305). [14]           UNJSPF, National Taxation: Guide to national taxation of United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund benefits, with special reference to United States income taxation (2010), online: UNJSPF <www.unjspf.org/UNJSPF_Web/pdf/National%20Taxation_Guide_2010.pdf>, Exhibit R‑1, Tab 7, p. 7, at par. 11. [15]           26 U.S.C. § 402(a). [16]          26 U.S.C. § 72(a)(1). [17]          26 U.S.C. § 72(b)(1). [18]           Taxation Guide, supra, note 14 at par. 13. [19]           Ibid. at par. 14. [20]           Ibid. at par. 27. [21]           Ibid. at par. 28(a). [22]           Ibid. at par. 28(d). [23]          Publication 575 at p. 9. [24]           Ibid. at p. 11. [25]           Ibid. at p. 12. ...

Or, cette créance n'a pas à naître ou à subir l'influence de l'acte apparent ou de la convention des parties: elle peut naître d'un délit ou, comme en l'espèce, de la loi. ... L'élément intentionnel consiste dans la volonté de tromper les tiers sur l'existence ou le contenu d'une convention.                                                                                                 ... S'il en était autrement, il faudrait dire que les conventions secrètes ayant pour but d'annuler l'effet d'un acte apparent ont plus de force, quand elles sont verbales, que si elles sont faites par une contre-lettre écrite, qui prouve directement la simulation. [17]          De plus, cette approche est en conformité avec l'interprétation adoptée par le juge Tremblay dans Jennewein et Le ministre du Revenu National, 91 DTC 594, aux pages 598 et 599: La lecture de ces deux textes semble claire. ...

It has been determined that Rhita El Ansari's employment was not insurable employment during the period at issue pursuant to paragraph 5(2)(d) of the Employment Insurance Act. [4]      To understand the motion, I consider it helpful to include the facts relied on by the Minister of National Revenue ("the Minister") when he made his decision as well as the appellant's grounds of appeal. [5]      Paragraph 5 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal reads as follows: [TRANSLATION] (a)         the appellant has been a landed immigrant since December 17, 1991; (b)         the appellant began working for the payer on September 1, 1993; (c)         during the period at issue, the appellant worked as a secretary for the payer's embassy in Ottawa; (d)         the appellant worked under a contract of service; and (e)         there is no agreement between Morocco and Canada concerning the eligibility of the payer's employees working in Canada for employment insurance. [6]      The appellant's grounds of appeal are as follows: [TRANSLATION] I therefore make the following arguments: (A)        by not requiring countries that have signed the said Convention [Vienna Convention] to comply with it as part of international law and part of Canadian law, the Canadian government-while showing a lack of respect for its own legislation vis-à-vis foreign countries-is wrongly and unlawfully making its workers suffer the consequences of the wrongdoing (violation of Canadian and international laws) by the employer at fault; (B)        as a result of that negligence or carelessness by the government, first, that class of employers is given preferential treatment over the class of Canadian employers in our own country, Canada, and the latter class is therefore being discriminated against; and (C)        second, the employees of those foreign governments are treated in a discriminatory manner compared with employees of Canadian employers. ... He filed the letters mailed to the ministers and certain members of the Moroccan government as Exhibit A-1. [20]     The appellant's agent filed the Convention on Social Security between Canada and Morocco signed on July 1, 1998, as Exhibit A-2. ...

[French version] “ acquéreur ” a) personne qui est tenue, aux termes d'une convention portant sur une fourniture, de payer la contrepartie de la fourniture; b) personne qui est tenue, autrement qu'aux termes d'une convention portant sur une fourniture, de payer la contrepartie de la fourniture; [italics added]... ... Erich Klein, Revisor [1] (b) where paragraph (a) does not apply and consideration is payable for the supply, the person who is liable to pay that consideration. [2] b) personne qui est tenue, autrement qu'aux termes d'une convention portant sur une fourniture, de payer la contrepartie de la fourniture [3] Recourse to determining the intent of Parliament is governed by what the Federal Court of Appeal stated in Eastmain Indian Band v. ...

Monjazeb decided he was going to go to an annual electronics convention in Las Vegas, Mr. ... Monjazeb’s unilateral decision to go to the CES convention in Las Vegas. ... The only example of expenses incurred unilaterally that might suggest being in business for himself was attending the CES convention. ...

Le fondateur de l'entreprise, Raymond Blain, a voulu intéresser ses enfants aux affaires de la quincaillerie et, en 1994, une convention entre actionnaires par laquelle les actions de l'appelante étaient distribuées, a été signée par Raymond Blain, le père, Pauline Blain, la mère, et leurs enfants Serge Blain et André Blain (pièce I-1). [10]          Raymond Blain est le seul actionnaire à avoir investi de l'argent dans l'appelante. ... Il a expliqué les termes de la convention entre actionnaire en ces termes: « les enfants étaient intéressés à gérer l'entreprise ». [14]          Serge Blain était le gérant de la quincaillerie alors qu'André s'occupait du personnel. ...

      [15]   In the present case, this Court was of the view that the appellant, who is a reputable tax expert, raised new issues of public interest as regards the interpretation of an international tax convention and the right to access the information obtained and exchanged pursuant to that Convention: see paragraph 44 of the decision. ...

He said that the evidence respecting what happened at conventions, in respect of which the Appellants had deducted expenses, was vague. ... That section reads as follows: In computing income, no deduction shall be made in respect of an outlay or expense in respect of which any amount is otherwise deductible under this Act except to the extent that the outlay or expense was reasonable in the circumstances. [22] Relevant figures, taken from the statement of business activities in Renald's 1994 income tax return are: Net sales income $35,932 Bonuses earned and miscellaneous sales and rebates $12,249 Gross income $48,182 [23] The expenses are: Advertising, promotion and discounts $648 Bad debts $215 Business tax, fees, licences dues, memberships $ 81 Delivery, freight, and express $809 Supplies $353 Interest $102 Meals and entertainment $426 Motor vehicle expenses $3,486 Office expenses $792 Legal, accounting, and other professional fees $112 Return tapes and outdated products $2,008 Salaries, wages and benefits $240 Travel $2,790 Bonuses paid out $4,710 Conventions and other functions $1,740 Total Business expenses $18,516 [24] While it may be reasonable for losses of this order to arise during the initial years of a business operation, its continuance does not seem "reasonable in the circumstances" of the Appellants' operations. ...

superannuation or pension benefit  includes any amount received out of or under a superannuation or pension fund or plan (including, except for the purposes of subparagraph 56(1)(a)(i), a pooled registered pension plan) and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes any payment made to a beneficiary under the fund or plan or to an employer or former employer of the beneficiary under the fund or plan (a) in accordance with the terms of the fund or plan, (b) resulting from an amendment to or modification of the fund or plan, or (c) resulting from the termination of the fund or plan; (prestation de retraite ou de pension) [15]   The relevant provision of the Convention between Canada and Australia for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income is the following: Article 18 Pensions and Annuities 1. ... In Ruparel, benefits received by the taxpayer were included in income under section 56 of the Act. [26]   The Convention between Canada and Australia for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income (the “Treaty”) does not prohibit the taxation of the pension benefits by Canada. ...