Summary of Issue: Family Business

Decision 50629 Full Text of Decision 50629

Information obtained through Revenue Canada (RC) showed that claimant received net income of $12,628 for 1996 and $20,764 for 1997 produced from an income splitting permissible by RC in order to minimize the family's tax liability. Claimant worked for the enterprise. Held that claimant could not have both benefits: income tax returns and e.i. benefits. Citing CUB 41882A, the umpire upheld the Commission's decision and ruled that the claimant had split the income from the enterprise with her spouse and, consequently, had earnings from the venture.

Decision 29146 Full Text of Decision 29146

Was a 40% shareholder in a farm where she worked as a salaried employee. A 15% portion of the farm's 40% gross revenues was attributed to her as income. Several decisions reviewed. Held that the Board dit not err in ruling as it did.

Decision 25111 Full Text of Decision 25111

Claimant owns 20% of the farm, her husband 60% and her son 20%. She works at it full-time during the summer (insurable employment) and part-time during the winter. Issue at hand: earnings during the winter. Held that 20% of the 15% of the gross earnings should be allocated to the claimant.

Decision A-1428.92 Full Text of Decision A-1428.92

Holding 40% of the shares in the business with her husband, part of the income derived from the maple grove and from the sales and purchases of cattle has been attributed to her. Held that it is impossible to say that the Board's decision is based on an error of law or on unreasonnable conclusions.

Decision 21835 Full Text of Decision 21835

Refer to: A-1428.92

Decision 21358 Full Text of Decision 21358

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.

Decision 18418 Full Text of Decision 18418

Claimant and wife are equal partners of the farm. The Board properly recognized that before the earnings from the milk sales could be allocated, the proceeds had to be split in half in order to account for the joint ownership.

Decision 17434 Full Text of Decision 17434

Father and son operating a farm as a company; revenue and expenses were shared, as stipulated by contract, in the proportion of 80% and 20%. The net income of the son was established at 20% of 35%, in accordance with Reg. 57(6)(b).

Decision 12219 Full Text of Decision 12219

He feels that the Board erred by failing to consider the work done by other family members [other than wife]. However, other family members are not co-owners of the farm and, therefore, have no legal right to claim a share of farm earnings. [p. 7]