Cases
Schwartz v. Canada, 96 DTC 6103, [1996] 1 SCR 254
An individual who had entered into a contract of employment was not, at that time, an employee because under the definition, an individual does not become an employee until "he or she becomes under obligation to provide services under the terms of the contract".
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 180 - Subsection 180(3) | no deference to FCA factual findings | 95 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 248 - Subsection 248(1) - Retiring Allowance | pre-employment termination damages were not a retiring allowance | 62 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 3 - Paragraph 3(a) - Business Source/Reasonable Expectation of Profit | 53 | |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 3 - Paragraph 3(a) | quaere whether income can be from a non-enumerated source | 45 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 5 - Subsection 5(1) | 83 | |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 68 | 95 | |
| Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Comparison of Provisions | presumption of consistent expression within same statute | 73 |
| Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Specific v. General Provisions | specific statutory rule should not be undercut by a more general rule | 76 |
Scott v. The Queen, 94 DTC 6193, [1994] 1 CTC 330 (FCA)
The taxpayer, who was the Director and Secretary-Treasurer of a public corporation ("Night Hawk") and whose work as corporate secretary (for which he received no remuneration) of advising directors of meetings, taking minutes and preparing directors resolutions etc. was the usual work of a corporate secretary, was issued stock options by Night Hawk and exercised them at a gain.
As he was an officer of Night Hawk and "an officer of a corporation is an employee of that corporation and necessarily has an employment relationship with the corporation", it followed that he was an employee and in an employment relationship with Night Hawk, so that s. 7(1)(a) applied to the exercise by him of the stock options.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 7 - Subsection 7(5) | 222 |
The Queen v. Kuhl, 74 DTC 6024, [1973] CTC 846 (FCTD)
"The definition of employment ... clearly requires a master and servant relationship."
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - General Concepts - Evidence | 29 | |
| Tax Topics - General Concepts - Tax Avoidance | 13 | |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 248 - Subsection 248(1) - Farming | 75 | |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 3 | 54 |
See Also
Blaker v. The Queen, 93 DTC 1025, [1994] 1 CTC 2242 (TCC)
A lump sum of $90,000 received by the taxpayer in consideration for his resignation from a governor-in-council appointment to the National Parole Board constituted a retiring allowance. Mogan TCJ. stated (p. 1027) that he could "find nothing that would make an appointment by the Governor-in-Council different from an office or employment in any other sense."
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 248 - Subsection 248(1) - Retiring Allowance | 55 |
Administrative Policy
9 April 1999 Income Tax Severed Letter 9906056 F - FRAIS LÉGAUX/RÉGIME D'ASSURANCE-SALAIRE
Legal fees incurred by the taxpayer to recover benefits under a salary insurance plan were not deductible under s. 8(1)(b), given that the taxpayer was not an employee of the insurer, i.e., was not in the service of the insurer as provided in the definition of "employment" in s. 248(1).
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 8 - Subsection 8(1) - Paragraph 8(1)(b) | legal fees incurred to recover salary insurance plan benefits were non-deductible | 52 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 18 - Subsection 18(1) - Paragraph 18(1)(a) - Income-Producing Purpose | s. 18(1)(a) applied on the basis of the main reason for which expense incurred | 118 |