Longtin v. The Queen, 2006 DTC 3254, 2006 TCC 335 -- summary under Subparagraph 8(1)(i)(ii)

By services, 28 November, 2015

In finding that the taxpayer, a sales person on salary and commission, was entitled to deduct the salaries of over $26,000 he paid to his wife (who forwarded telephone messages and fax messages to him while he is on the road, kept track of expenses and assisted him in entertaining), Margeson J. stated (at p. 3258):

"The Court is further satisfied that under the provisions of subparagraph 8(1)(i)(ii) in order for the Appellant to deduct the assistant's salary, he need only show that under his contract of employment he is required to pay her salary. There is no need for him to show that his contract of employment required him to have an assistant."

Topics and taglines
Tagline
re spousal assistant, employed sales person needed only to show that he was required to pay her salary
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
338862
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<a id=\"Longtin\"></a><strong><em>Longtin v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2006 DTC 3254, 2006 TCC 335",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}