Schwartz v. Canada, 96 DTC 6103, [1996] 1 SCR 254 -- summary under Retiring Allowance

By services, 28 November, 2015

The taxpayer received $400,000 in settlement of his claim for damages following the repudiation by a company ("Dynacare") of its agreement to employ him as a senior vice-president. La Forest J. found that because at the time of the repudiation, the taxpayer was not yet an employee of Dynacare, the amount received by him could not qualify as a retiring allowance.

Topics and taglines
Topic
Income Tax Act - s. 248(1) - Retiring Allowance
Tagline
pre-employment termination damages were not a retiring allowance
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
337344
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>Schwartz v. The Queen</em></strong>, 96 DTC 6103, [1996] 1 SCR 254",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}