Adams v. R., (sub nom. R. v. Adams) 98 D.T.C. 6266, [1998] 2 C.T.C. 353 -- summary under Paragraph 6(1)(e)

By services, 28 November, 2015

The taxpayers were car salesmen who leased automobiles from the dealership, were required to ensure that the vehicles were on the premises of the dealership during normal business hours and free of personal items, and otherwise could use the automobiles as they wished. In overturning a finding of the Tax Court that in these circumstances s. 6(1)(e) did not apply because the taxpayers did not have "unrestricted use" of the automobiles, Robertson J.A. found (at p. 6270) in light of the broad language of s. 6(1)(e) and its legislative history that "the purpose for which the employer's automobile was made available is not a relevant consideration".

Topics and taglines
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
308765
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
338424
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em><a name=\"Adams\"></a>The Queen v. Adams</em></strong>, 98 DTC 6266, Docket: A-17-96 (FCA)",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}