Search - convention

Canada has no income tax convention with TCI. Therefore the rules set out in Canada's income tax treaties with respect to persons with dual residency have no application. ...

L'élément intentionnel consiste dans la volonté de tromper les tiers sur l'existence ou le contenu d'une convention. [39]The existence of a simulation therefore depends on a mutual intention of the parties that their rights and obligations be different from what is set out in their written agreement. ...

The relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act are as follows: 212(1) Every non-resident person shall pay an income tax of 25 per cent on every amount that a person resident in Canada pays or credits, or is deemed by Part I to pay or credit, to him as, on account or in lieu of payment of, or in satisfaction of, (b) interest.... 215(1) When a person pays or credits or is deemed to have paid or credited an amount on which an income tax is payable under this Part, he shall, notwithstanding any agreement or any law to the contrary, deduct or withhold therefrom the amount of the tax and forthwith remit that amount to the Receiver General on behalf of the non-resident person on account of the tax and shall submit therewith a statement in prescribed form. 215(2) Where an amount on which an income tax is payable under this Part is paid or credited by an agent or other person on behalf of the debtor either by way of redemption of bearer coupons or warrants or otherwise, the agent or other person by whom the amount was paid or credited shall, notwithstanding any agreement or law to the contrary, deduct or withhold and remit the amount of the tax and shall submit therewith a statement in prescribed form as required by subsection (1) and shall thereupon, for purposes of accounting to or obtaining reimbursement from the debtor, be deemed to have paid or credited the full amount to the person otherwise entitled to payment. 215(3) Where an amount on which an income tax is payable under this Part was paid or credited to an agent or other person for or on behalf of the person entitled to payment without the tax having been withheld or deducted under subsection (1), the agent or other person shall, notwithstanding any agreement or law to the contrary, deduct or withhold therefrom the amount of the tax and forthwith remit that amount to the Receiver General on behalf of the person entitled to payment in payment of the tax and shall submit therewith a statement in prescribed form, and he shall thereupon, for purposes of accounting to the person entitled to payment, be deemed to have paid or credited that amount to him. 215(6) Where a person has failed to deduct or withhold any amount as required by this section from an amount paid or credited or deemed to have been paid or credited to a non-resident person, that person is liable to pay as tax under this Part on behalf of the non-resident person the whole of the amount that should have been deducted or withheld, and is entitled to deduct or withhold from any amount paid or credited by him to the non-resident person or otherwise recover from the non-resident person any amount paid by him as tax under this Part on behalf thereof. 227(8) Any person who has failed to deduct or withhold any amount as required by this Act or a regulation is liable to pay to Her Majesty (a) if the amount should have been deducted or withheld...under section 215 from an amount that has been paid to a person not resident in Canada, ten per cent of the amount that should have been deducted or withheld, and The tax of 25 per cent in paragraph 212(l)(b) is reduced to 15 per cent under Article 11 of the Canada-Australia Income Tax Convention (1980). ...

The expression used in this paragraph is one used in Canada's numerous income tax conventions based on the OECD model, but it is not part of the jurisprudence relating to the term "resident" or "ordinarily resident". nn) In 1992, 1993 and 1994, the Appellant was resident in Canada; Not admitted. oo) In the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years, the Appellant's earned income in Kuwait in the amounts of $123,291.00, $128,229.00 and $137,685.00 respectively, which income was taxable in Canada; The amounts are admitted and the fact they were earned in Kuwait but otherwise the paragraph is not admitted. pp) In 1992, 1993 and 1994, the Appellant was not subject to and paid no tax in Kuwait on income earned in Kuwait. [10]          These facts can be briefly supplemented by a few other points established in evidence. ...

Analysis   [11]    The issue is therefore whether the investment income of an Indian is personal property situated on an Indian reserve and whether it should be excluded from the Indian's income pursuant to paragraph 81(1)(a) of the Act, which provides as follows:   81(1) Amounts not included in income – There shall not be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year,   (a) 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 ...

The parties referred to a treaty Canada-United States Income Tax Convention (1980). ...

I shall consider first the two missionary organizations: CBOMB CBOMB was established in 1911 to undertake foreign mission work on behalf of the Foreign Mission Board of the Canadian Baptist Conventions. ...

They had two or three different events and conventions that we attended and I wanted them to see with their own eyes what the company was doing.             ...

., whose name was changed to Solidarity Cabs Ltd. on or about January 16, 1995; (e) in January 1995, an agreement was drawn up between the Appellant and his spouse by which the Appellant relinquished the use of the name Jiffy Cabs as well as its business phone number to the Payor for $1.00; (f) the Appellant also agreed to the transfer of 22 of the 42 taxi licenses owned by Jiffy Cabs (1993) Ltd. to the Payor for $1.00; (g) the Appellant changed the name of Jiffy Cabs (1993) Ltd. to Solidarity Cabs Ltd. following the transfer of assets; (h) during each of the periods in question, the Appellant was hired by the Payor as a sales and marketing manager; (i) during the periods in question, the Appellant's duties consisted of maintaining winter capacity, negotiating for services at conventions and conferences, doing promotional work, checking the conditions of the cars, inspecting the drivers and their attire, finding new operators, negotiating the purchase of new licenses, finding new clientele, organising new telephone lines, parking locations and handling customer complaints; (j) the Appellant received a weekly salary of $850.00 allegedly for 50 hours of work each week, giving an hourly rate of $17.00; (k) outside the periods in question, the Appellant is reported in the Payor's payroll book from March 2, 1996 until July 1, 1996, for 10 hours per week at the rate of $10.00 an hour, every week except weeks ending April 13 and 20; (l) the Appellant returned to full-time work with the Payor on July lst, 1996; (m) the Appellant was not required to report his hours of work to the Payor; (n) the number of taxi licenses issued to the Payor and to Jiffy Cabs, the Appellant's company, have not changed substantially after the transfer agreement as shown in the following: Dec 31, 1994 total Jiffy Cabs 34 Mall Cabs 5 39 March 28, 1995 total Jiffy Cabs 32 Mall Cabs 8 40 Dec 31, 1995 total Jiffy Cabs 35 Mall Cabs 15 50 March 22, 1996 total Jiffy Cabs 33 Mall Cabs 14 47 (o) contrary to the allegations made by the Appellant and the Payor, the Appellant's employment did not have a major effect on the Payor's business; (p) from June 6, 1994 to October 22, 1994, Jiffy Cabs (1993) Ltd., the Appellant's business, employed a sales and marketing manager at the weekly salary of $500.00; (q) from May 12, 1997 to September 27, 1997, the Payor employed a sales and marketing manager other than the Appellant, at the weekly salary of $500.00; (r) the Appellant's salary was substantially higher than the salary paid to the non-related workers hired for a similar position; (s) the Appellant's wages were excessive; (t) the Appellant's employment period was determined by the need to establish his claim for employment insurance benefits and not by the business need of the Payor; (u) the taxi licenses registered under the trade name of Jiffy Cabs, which were not part of the transfer agreement mentioned above, are still registered under the name of Jiffy Cabs and not under the name of Solidarity Cabs; (v) Mall Cabs Ltd did not purchase the shares of Solidarity Cabs Ltd.; (w) Mall Cabs Ltd. is using, for business purposes, taxi licenses which should be registered and operated under the name of Solidarity Cabs Ltd., which is the Appellant's business; (x) the Appellant is related to the Payor within the meaning of the Income Tax Act as amended; (y) the Appellant is not dealing with the Payor at arm's length; (z) having regard to all the circumstances of the employment, including the remuneration paid, the terms and conditions, the duration and the nature and importance of the work performed, it is not reasonable to conclude that the Appellant and the Payor would have entered into a substantially similar contract of employment if they had been dealing with each other at arm's length. ...

From a contact at a convention, he was made aware of property in the Wanless area of Manitoba. ...