Search - convention

Any journal, record, Act of Parliament, instrument, document, rule, order, regulation, treaty, convention, agreement, notice, advertisement or other matter referred to in this Part that is made, enacted, printed, published or tabled in both official languages shall be made, enacted, printed, published or tabled simultaneously in both languages, and both language versions are equally authoritative. ...

(“Lease Master”), has appealed the reassessment of his 2003 taxation year on the basis that he is entitled to deduct the following disallowed expenses:   EXPENSE CLAIMED ALLOWED DISALLOWED         Motor vehicle $ 5,299.00 $            0 $  5,299.00 Meals & entertainment   3,522.00  861.30  2,660.70 Accounting & legal  1,177.00  1,177.00  0 Advertising & promotion  1,413.00  365.25  1,047.75 Office expenses  1,775.00  0  1,775.00 Convention & trade shows  1,763.00  0  1,763.00 Salary to assistant  25,720.35  0  25,720.35 Telecommunications  897.83  0  897.83 Work space in the home  737.00  0  737.00 TOTAL $42,304.18 $2,403.55 $39,900.63 [2]      The provisions of the Income Tax Act which are relevant to this appeal are as follows:   8. (1) Deductions allowed-- In computing a taxpayer's income for a taxation year from an office or employment, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as are wholly applicable to that source or such part of the following amounts as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto:   (f) sales expenses [of commission employee]-- where the taxpayer was employed in the year in connection with the selling of property or negotiating of contracts for the taxpayer's employer, and                         (i) under the contract of employment was required to pay the taxpayer's own expenses,               (ii) was ordinarily required to carry on the duties of the employment away from the employer's place of business,               (iii) was remunerated in whole or part by commissions or other similar amounts fixed by reference to the volume of the sales made or the contracts negotiated, and               (iv) was not in receipt of an allowance for travel expenses in respect of the taxation year that was, by virtue of subparagraph 6(1)(b)(v), not included in computing the taxpayer's income,   amounts expended by the taxpayer in the year for the purpose of earning the income from the employment (not exceeding the commissions or other similar amounts referred to in subparagraph (iii) and received by the taxpayer in the year) to the extent that such amounts were not               (v) outlays, losses or replacements of capital or payments on account of capital, except as described in paragraph (j),               (vi) outlays or expenses that would, by virtue of paragraph 18(1)(l), not be deductible in computing the taxpayer's income for the year if the employment were a business carried on by the taxpayer, or             (vii) amounts the payment of which reduced the amount that would otherwise be included in computing the taxpayer's income for the year because of paragraph 6(1)(e);   (2) General limitation-- Except as permitted by this section, no deductions shall be made in computing a taxpayer's income for a taxation year from an office or employment. ...

(p)     The Worker attended “Home Show” conventions without pay.   (q)     The Worker postponed cashing pay cheques about 5 to 10 times although this is contradicted in the Questionnaire, Exhibit R-4.   ...

With respect to the foregoing, the Appellant reported gross business income and claimed business losses in the years 1994 to 2000 as follows:      Taxation Year        Gross Revenue Net Business Loss 1994 $nil $5,727 1995 1,453 10,769 1996 23,627 16,515 1997 26,638 nil 1998 19,234 232 1999 11,361 11,733 2000 3,020 11,166 [3]      In the three taxation years in issue, the Appellant reported gross business income, costs of sales and expenses including capital cost allowance, and business losses from Isaiah Publications as follows: Taxation Year             2001             2002            2003 Gross Business Income $50.85 $110.00 $2,300.00 Cost of Sale 656.11-0--0- Gross Profit (605.26) 110.00 2,300.00 Expenses Maintenance & repairs 193.84-0-0- Motor vehicle expenses 5,756.57 6,130.59 4,351.96 Office expenses 422.37 1,304.89 1,413.20 Legal, accounting 220.50 229.00 235.00 Other expenses 1,883.55 3,377.86 2,505.53 Capital cost allowance 3,020.80 3,652.29 3,884.59 Total Expenses 11,497.63 14,694.63 12,390.28 Net Loss (12,102.89) (14,584.63) (10,090.28) [4]      The Appellant testified that in order to promote his book, he attended bookseller's conventions, did radio interviews, attended literary luncheons, and so forth. ...

This is the amount of the Appellant's Canadian benefits, less a deduction under subparagraph 110(1)(f)(i) of Division D for income which is exempted from taxation under an agreement or convention with another country (i.e. the Appellant's CPP and superannuation income.) [15]     The second amount equals $21,594 for 2002 and $21,976 for 2003, which was the Appellant's net world income. [16]     Therefore, the Appellant's TIEC according to paragraph 217(3)(b) was $21,594 for 2002 and $21,976 for 2003, being the greater of the first and second amounts above for each year. [17]     The Appellant argues that the Minister erred in including all of his income in his TIEC since, under the Treaty, his CPP and superannuation benefits were exempt from tax. ...

Ghislaine Champoux, the appellant obtained legal custody of her daughter Priscilla under the terms of a Court judgment dated December 13, 2001; e)          prior to the period at issue, the appellant was always considered the parent who was primarily responsible for the care and upbringing of her daughter Priscilla; f)           the Minister's review demonstrated the following: i)           the child Priscilla was not living with the appellant during the period at issue; ii)          the documentation provided by the parties, with the aim of demonstrating that they were the parent primarily responsible for the care and upbringing of the child Priscilla, did not argue in favour of the appellant because, among other reasons, several of the documents submitted did not relate to the period at issue; g)          the Minister considered that the appellant was not the parent who was primarily responsible for the care and upbringing of her child Priscilla for the period from July 2000 to October 2001 inclusive, in respect of the 1999 and 2000 base taxation years. [5]      The only question at issue is whether the Minister was wrong in deciding that the appellant was not an eligible individual for the periods at issue. [6]      The definition of "eligible individual" in subsection 122.6 of the Income Tax Act (the "Act") was worded as follows at the time: "eligible individual" In respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time (a) resides with the qualified dependant, (b) is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfills the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant, (c) is resident in Canada or, where the person is the cohabiting spouse of a person who is deemed under subsection 250(1) to be resident in Canada throughout the taxation year that includes that time, was resident in Canada in any preceding taxation year, (d) is not described in paragraph 149(1)(a) or (b), and (e) is, or whose cohabiting spouse is, a Canadian citizen or a person who (i)          is a permanent resident (within the meaning assigned by the Immigration Act), (ii)         is a visitor in Canada or the holder of a permit in Canada (within the meanings assigned by the Immigration Act) who was resident in Canada throughout the 18 month period preceding that time, or (iii)        was determined before that time under the Immigration Act, or regulations made under that Act, to be a Convention refugee, and for the purposes of this definition, (f) where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant's female parent, the parent who primarily fulfills the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed to be the female parent, (g) the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and (h) prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing. [7]      For the application of paragraphs (g) and (h) of the definition of "eligible individual" under section 122.6 of the Act, sections 6301 and 6302 of Part LXIII of the Income Tax Regulations (the "Regulations") stipulate as follows: NON-APPLICATION OF PRESUMPTION 6301 ...

The Respondent adds that the Appellant is not entitled to deduct expenses for meals, lodging, airport tax and taxi expenses, entertainment expenses, convention expenses and office expenses in excess of the amounts allowed pursuant to paragraphs 8(1) (h), (h. 1), (i) and (j) and subsections 8(4) and (13) of the Act ...

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION: [7]            Section 87 of the Indian Act reads, in part, as follows: 87(1) Notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament or any Act of the legislature of a province, but subject to section 83, the following property is exempt from taxation, namely, (a)            the interest of an Indian or a band in reserve lands or surrendered lands; and (b)            the personal property of an Indian or a band situated on a reserve. (2)            No Indian or band is subject to taxation in respect of the ownership, occupation, possession or use of any property mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) or (b) is otherwise subject to taxation in respect of any such property. [8]            Paragraph 81(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act reads as follows: There shall not be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year,... an amount that is declared to be exempt from income tax by any other enactment of Parliament, other than an amount received or receivable by an individual that is exempt by virtue of a provision contained in a tax convention or agreement with another country that has the force of law in Canada. [9]            In Nowegijick v. ...

Keeping has also been able to purchase approximately 80% of his family's needs at wholesale through his Amway distributorship and he has attended out of province Amway Conventions at Niagara Falls and Atlanta, Georgia on a tax deductible basis. ...

Canadian custom and convention has only made provisions for the abrogation of private sector human and civil rights in the presence of war. ...