| November 16, 1989 | |
| To: Hamilton District Office | From: A.W. Larochelle |
| (613) 957-2140 | |
| A. Smith | |
| Audit Division | File No. 7-4248 |
Subject: 24(1) Accrued Vacation Pay for Salaried Employees
This is in reply to your memorandum of August 9, 1989, wherein you requested our views regarding: 24(1)
The relevant facts as we understand them are as follows:
1.
2.
3. 24(1)
4.
5.
6. In our telephone conversation of September 13, 1989, you confirmed the following additional facts:
24(1)
Based on the above facts you have asked us to confirm the following:
a)
b) 24(1)
Our Comments
1. 24(1) For further support you could refer to the following cases:
a) Pickle Crow Gold Mines Ltd. v. M.N.R. 55 DTC 1001.
b) Edmonton Liquid Gas Limited v. The Queen 84 DTC 6356.
c) J.L. Guay Ltee v. M.N.R. 71 DTC 5423.
2. Our reasons in support of this conclusion are as follows:
a) 24(1)
b) 24(1) 21(1)(b)
c) 24(1) In particular, comments in the case of J.L. Guay Ltee v. M.N.R., 71 DTC 5427, are most interesting.
We trust that the foregoing comments will be of assistance to you.
for DirectorSmall Business and General DivisionSpecialty Rulings DirectorateLegislative and IntergovernmentalAffairs Branch