Summary of Issue: Between Spouses

Decision 69102 Full Text of Decision 69102

The claimant contended that the business, operating under the name KyCo Industries, belongs to his wife and that his share of the net income, in the year 2004 of $14,161.65 was paid to him for the purpose only of income splitting. Income splitting for tax purposes will not relieve the claimant from the allocation. The money he received is considered income in his hands. In any event, the claimant owned 50 percent of the business and 50 percent of the net income belonged to him.

Decision 42221 Full Text of Decision 42221

Decision 41492 Full Text of Decision 41492

Claimant worked for his wife’s business and generated income from his work. That income was used to pay for house-related expenses. Umpire found that in the circumstances, he was deriving benefit from his work in the form of payment of the couple’s expenses through his wife’s business income resulting from the work he provided himself. BOR had therefore erred in law in deciding to cancel the claimant’s overpayment because while the claimant did not receive payment directly, the money that his wife’s business made from his work was used to pay for the couple’s house-related expenses.

Decision A-0904.96 Full Text of Decision A-0904.96

Wife paid for work performed by the claimant. No earnings declared. Claimant admitted before the BOR that he knew the way he was completing his cards was incorrect and illegal. Nevertheless, the BOR found that the claimant had not knowingly made 14 false statements. Umpire overturned the BOR's decision, stating that it was made with total disregard for the facts. FCA ruled that the Umpire was justified in substituting her assessment of the evidence for that of the BOR, since the Board had dismissed a statement by the claimant without explanation.

Decision 23220 Full Text of Decision 23220

Assurée qui, quelques heures par semaine le dimanche, s'occupe, sans rémunération, de la tenue de livres pour l'entreprise de plomberie de son mari. En 9-89, celui-ci décide de lui payer une prime de 6000 $ pour le travail effectué de 4-88 à 4-89. Répartition hebdomadaire de 115,38 $ maintenue.

Decision 21882 Full Text of Decision 21882

Spouse is owner of social dance school; the insured states he is being paid $5 an hour; according to CEIC, he is coadventurer and 50% of the profits should be attributed to him. No decision rendered pursuant to Reg. 42; argument has no foundation; credibility not in doubt.

Decision 19240 Full Text of Decision 19240

Contract exclusively in claimant's name. I find as a fact that management responsibilities were shared with spouse. I should look at the reality and not the form of the situation and split the dollar value of the rent accordingly.

Decision A-0464.90 Full Text of Decision A-0464.90

Superintendent of apartment house. Basic salary plus rent. Had proper arrangements been made, it might have been possible for the employer to attribute the value of the rent to claimant's lady friend as her services were certainly necessary but this was not done. Upheld by FC.

Decision 17990 Full Text of Decision 17990

Refer to: A-0464.90

Decision 17120 Full Text of Decision 17120

The spouse offers dancing classes and pays her husband $4 an hour; the wage was not considered reasonable by CEIC who set it at 50% of profits. Reg. 57(8) and 57(6)(d) concerned only board and lodging. Reg. 43(1) was not referred to, therefore the notion of "co-venturer" does not apply.

Decision 15805 Full Text of Decision 15805

Contract awarded to a spouse who has no driver's license nor any equipment to carry out the work. According to the Board, she acted as a dummy contractor and the earnings belong to the insured. There is nothing absurd or arbitrary in the Board's decision.

Decision 15504 Full Text of Decision 15504

Claimant was the party with whom the agreement for janitorial work had been made. It was her responsibility alone to ensure that work was done. Work done by husband. She was the person on whom the employer relied. It was claimant who was employed and inreceipt of monies.

Decision 13517 Full Text of Decision 13517

Wife was only person under contract as superintendant; however, board concluded that work was done by claimant. Finding neither perverse nor capricious.

Decision 12626 Full Text of Decision 12626

Claimant was the only one employed as janitor; his wife was not. It was his own decision to separate both his work and his salary with her. The decision reached by the Board was the correct one; the claimant should have declared his entire income.