Search - convention

Further, in Ernest G Stickel v MNR, [1972] CTC 210; 72 DTC 6178, it was held that an Information Bulletin published by the Minister which misstated the effect of Article 8(a) of a Tax Convention did not create an estoppel against the Minister. ...

Further, in Ernest G Stickel v MNR, [1972] CTC 210; 72 DTC 6178, it was held that an Information Bulletin published by the Minister which misstated the effect of Article 8(a) of a Tax Convention did not create an estoppel against the Minister. ...

He paid his own expenses (advertising, automobile, convention). 3.03 The appellant’s husband, Mr Richard Henry Walman, died in December 1975. 3.04 In 1976, the appellant received $7,055.87 from the three companies mentioned in paragraph 3.01 above. ...

In the end result, it was agreed between the parties that the following statements represented a summary of the amounts involved in the appellant’s contention that he was in business: 1974 EXPENSES — BOAT BUSINESS Type of Expense Amount Deducted Advertising, Promotion $ 239.69 Convention Expenses 265.32 Supplies, Materials 901.31 $1,406.32 1974 EXPENSES — DESIGN BUSINESS Type of Expense Amount Deducted Accounting, Legal, Collection $ 130,00 Automobile Expenses (gasoline, insurance, repairs) 1,078.97 Business Tax, Fees, Licences 25.00 Fire and Liability Insurance 33.00 Interest, Exchange, Bank Charges 2.00 Office Expenses, Postage, Stationery 87.50 Rent: 2/6 of apartment rent & hydro 1,169.22 Telephone, Light, Heat, Water 99.12 Other Expenses: subscriptions 26.00 $2,650.81 Aggregate $4,057.13 Minister has allowed $150. If succeed on Design Business — allow additional $2,500.81 If succeed on Boat Business — allow additional $1,406.32 If succeed on both — add $3,907.13 1975 EXPENSES — BOAT BUSINESS Type of Expense Amount Deducted Advertising, Promotion $ 281.45 Business Tax, Fees, Licences 52.00 Convention Expenses 705.63 Rent: Workshop 300.00 Supplies, Materials 654.01 $1,993.09 1975 EXPENSES — DESIGN BUSINESS Type of Expense Amount Deducted Accounting, Legal, Collection $ 100.00 Automobile Expenses (gasoline, insurance repairs) 970.13 Fire and Liability Insurance 33.00 Interest, Exchange, Bank Charges 6.00 Office Expenses, Postage, Stationery 122.15 Rent: 2/6 of apartment 1,180.00 Telephone, Light, Heat, Water 141.85 Capital Cost Allowance 400.00 $2,953.13 Aggregate claimed $4,946.22 Amount allowed by Minister $150.00 If succeed on design business, allow additional $2,803.13 If succeed on boat business, allow additional $1,993.09 1976 EXPENSES — BOAT BUSINESS Type of Expense Amount Deducted Advertising, Promotion $ 176.43 Business Tax, Fees, Licenses 58.50 Interest, Exchange, Bank Charges 189.42 Maintenance and Repairs (except automobile, truck) 90.00 Rent (workshop) 800.00 Supplies, Materials 2,343.74 $3,658.09 1976 EXPENSES — DESIGN BUSINESS Type of Expense Amount Deducted Accounting, Legal, Collection $ 125.00 Automobile Expenses (gasoline, insurance, repairs) 2,092.24 Fire and Liability Insurance 33.00 Office Expenses, Postage, Stationery 75.79 Rent: 2/6 of apartment 1,274.40 Telephone, Light, Heat, Water: 2/6 of $600.38 200.13 Travelling Expenses (except automobile) 1, 114.03 Capital Cost Allowance 1,341.15 $6,255.74 Expenses claimed $9,913.83 Allowed by Minister $443.90 If successful on design business — allow additional $5,701.84 If successful on boat business — allow additional $3,658.09 Evidence With regard to the “boat interest”, the appellant reviewed his long standing interest in boating, the associations to which he belonged over the years, and his particular interest in building a “racing boat” which was the type in question in these appeals. ... His testimony was that he had not gone to any of the lending institutions to try to interest them in this kind of venture, that he had gone to quite a number of regattas for which he had charged convention expenses, that he had spoken to people at the club of which he was a member, the Toronto Hydro-Plane Club, and it would seem from the lack of evidence on this that there wasn’t a single person who was interested in putting any money into this venture with Mr Cork. ...

Further, in Ernest G Shekel v MNR, [1972] CTC 210; 72 DTC 6178, it was held that an Information Bulletin published by the Minister which misstated the effect of Article 8(a) of a Tax Convention did not create an estoppel against the Minister. ...

Contentions For the appellant: — he was a non-resident of Canada during the years in question; — he was a resident of Ireland during the same period, and is exempt from tax according to the Canada-Ireland Income Tax Agreement Act, 1967 (the “Agreement” or the “Convention”); For the respondent: —the appellant was not at any time material a resident of Ireland and the “Agreement” is of no assistance to him. ... The Convention does not of itself determine “residency”. In my opinion, it simply sets out the rules to apply to avoid double taxation once that determination of residency has been made. In this instant matter the Convention cannot be applied to make Erickson a “resident” of Ireland, and thereby a “non-resident” of Canada. ...

The respondent disallowed an amount of $926 as convention expenses, an amount of $1,500 as research expenses previously allowed, and $708.05 as part of travelling expenses, for a total of $3,134.05. ...

He stated further that, in order to obtain these contracts, both he and Mr Lecompte cultivated acquaintances, as stated earlier, by promotional work; through hospitality suites which they maintained at conventions; and by building up a reputation of reliability and credibility. ...

Although Mr Young's and Mr Ward's original concept seems to have been the servicing of the Fisher- Hoover land and the building of residential housing thereon for resale, Mr Lush suggested that the best use of the land in question would be a “mixed-use” development comprising a commercial complex which would include a hotel, a motel with convention facilities, retail outlets, a service centre, an apartment hotel, a low-intensity residential area, and possibly also an industrial area. 9 The Fisher-Hoover property was at that time zoned as agricultural land but, in the autumn of 1969, a new by-law was to be introduced, and it was contemplated therein that the subject property would be zoned industrial. 10 As part of its services, Peter G Lush & Associates Limited objected to the proposed municipal zoning of the Fisher-Hoover property and, hoping to enter into a dialogue on the question, unofficially filed a preliminary and preparatory block plan of the commercial complex proposed for the land in question, with a view to having the ultimate zoning changed to commercial instead of industrial. 11 I am satisfied from the evidence (Exhibits A-1 to A-9) that some effort was indeed made to have the zoning changed to commercial and that some preliminary work was done to interest participants in the proposed project. 12 An approach was made to Mr William Stevenson, a business associate of a Mr Rubinoff, who, as I understand it, is with the Holiday Inn chain of hotel- motels, a chain which Mr Lush was hoping would agree to be part of the commercial complex. ...

Pièce A-1 Copie du Contrat de vente et convention entre René Cambourieu et Jacques Delouvrier pour la vente du restaurant ‘‘Le Chaînon” situé au 1001 de la rue Saint-Denis, dans la ville de Montréal, à un prix de $50,000. ...