The taxpayer (a U.S. resident) provided his services, as independent contractor, to a nonresident corporation which, in turn, was hired by a Canadian company ("PanCan") to assist it in creating a computer system.
Before concluding that Canadian premises of PanCan were not a fixed base of the taxpayer, Sharlow J.A. indicated that the factors to be considered included "the actual use made of the premises ... whether and by what legal right the person exercised or could not exercise control over the premises, and the degree to which the premises were objectively identified with the person's business", and noted that the taxpayer had access to the offices of PanCan only during PanCan's office hours and only for the purpose of providing services required by the contract and that he had no right to use the offices as a base for the operation of his own business. The fact that his contract subsisted for more than a year was relevant only to the question of permanence, and not that of whether the premises were his place of business.