Words and Phrases - "full-time"

The taxpayer owned and rented five buildings (houses and small apartment buildings) in downtown Vancouver. In addition to using an arm’s length property management company, it employed an operations manager for part of the period and had resident building supervisors (“managers”) for its buildings. In addition, certain management, accounting and administrative services were performed for the taxpayer by employees of an associated real estate company (“PIC”) and by an associated securities brokerage (“WSL”), e.g., providing assistance in the preparation of its year-end financial statements.

In addressing the “more than 5 full-time employees” tests in paras. (a) and (b) of the specified investment business definition, Paris J first noted (at paras. 70-71) that under these tests:

it is first necessary to know how many full-time employees the Appellant in fact employed in the years in issue.

The next step is to determine how many full-time employees would be required in respect of the services performed by the associated corporations.

Respecting the first step, he found (at paras. 76, 78) that the taxpayer “mostly employed couples as building managers, and… the couples split a full-time position between them,” so that the taxpayer “did not employ any building managers full‑time throughout any of the years in issue.” Furthermore, the operations manager was not a full-time employee of the taxpayer, given that he worked more than 60% of his time for PIC.

Respecting a submission on the second step that the services of PIC and WSL were that equivalent of five full-time employees, he stated inter alia (at para. 85):

The Appellant’s contention that it would have required a full‑time CEO, executive assistant, accountant or CFO and accounting clerk is in large part predicated on the proposition that it was actively pursuing a redevelopment proposal in respect of its Stadacona site during its 2010 to 2012 taxation years. I find that the evidence does not support [such] a finding… .

After rejecting the equivalence of other services of PIC and WSL, he concluded (at para 93):

[I]t has not shown that, in the absence of the services provided by WSL and PIC, it would have required more than five full-time employees throughout the years in issue … it carried on a specified investment business in those years.