Skip to Content

Tax Court of Canada

Part-time babysitter was self-employed contractor, not employee, EI and CPP assessments overturned

In Iarutina v. M.N.R., 2011 TCC 114, the Tax Court of Canada ruled that a part-time babysitter was a self-employed contractor, not an employee, and thus the Employment Insurance (EI) and Canada Pension Plan ("CPP") assessments made against the alleged employer should be "vacated" or overturned.

Notably, the court took the intentions of the parties into consideration in making this determination, stating:  read more »

"Tax Issues for Business Immigrants"

"Tax Issues for Business Immigrants" is the title of a paper that Max Weder prepared for the Business Immigration - 2010 conference presented by the Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia in October 2010. Mr. Weder is a lawyer at Davis LLP in Vancouver, BC.

The paper addresses the following topics

  • Determination of Residency

    • Deemed Resident
    • Factually Resident
  • Deemed Non-Resident
  • Tax Issues on Immigration to Canada

Tax Court of Canada rejects employee's appeal concerning deduction of car expenses from income tax

In Brochu v. The Queen, 2010 TCC 274, the Tax Court of Canada addressed the basis on which employees are allowed, under the Income Tax Act, to deduct their car expenses to the extent that they relate to the person's work.


Under his collective agreement, Mr. Brochu, a heavy equipment operator, received:

  • a $20/week car allowance during the weeks in which he was stationed, beginning Monday and ending on Friday, at a remote "winter" logging camp; and
  • a $8/day car allowance during the weeks in which he drove daily to either
    the employer's "depot" (a garage/office), or to a marshalling point to catch a work shuttle to a "commuter" logging camp.

Mr. Brochu took the position that given he was given an unusually low car allowance by his employer, he should be able to deduct his actual car expenses from his income tax, to the extent that they exceeded the travel allowance.  The Canada Revenue Agency disagreed.

Court's Decision  read more »