| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
business returns |
family business |
|
Summary:
Immaterial he was holder of only 70% of the shares of the agricultural concern contrary to LAFOREST who was sole shareholder. CEIC only took into account, and justly so, 70% of the 35% of gross revenue, percentage matching the beneficiary's interest.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
business returns |
corporate body |
|
Summary:
The Board also erred in not coming to the conclusion that the fact the beneficiary held 70% of the shares of a company made him a self-employed worker in the agricultural field.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
business returns |
as income |
|
Summary:
Meets 43(2). The fact he was operating, even in an incidental and limited fashion, an agricultural business besides his regular employment did not prevent CEIC having to consider 35% of the gross revenue and subsidies he was getting out of his agricultural operation.
The Board erred in thinking that the fact the beneficiary was a trucker prevented him being a self-employed worker in the agricultural field pursuant to Reg. 57(6)(b). In the same vein, the fact of holding 70% of the shares of a company does not prevent him being a self-employed worker.
