Words and Phrases - "periodic"
Tsiaprailis v. Canada, 2005 DTC 5119, 2005 SCC 8, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 113
The taxpayer received a lump sum payment of $105,000 in settlement of her claim for wrongful termination of her long-term disability benefits. Although the portion of the settlement that was in respect of future disability benefits was not paid "pursuant to" the plan because there was no obligation on the part of the insurer to make a lump sum payment under the terms of the plan (para. 11), under the surrogatum principle, the portion of the lump sum payment that was intended to replace past disability payments was taxable to her under s. 6(1)(f). Charron J stated (at para. 15):
The determinative questions are: (1) what was the payment intended to replace? And ... (2) would the replaced amount have been taxable in the recipient’s hands? ... [I]t cannot be disputed on the evidence that part of the settlement monies was intended to replace past disability payments. It is also not disputed that such payments, had they been paid to Ms. Tsiaprailis, would have been taxable.
Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
---|---|---|
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 68 | general authority to allocate global amounts without reference to s. 68 | 54 |
Leonard v. The Queen, 96 DTC 6518, [1996] 3 CTC 265 (FCTD)
The collective agreement between the taxpayer's union and his employer called upon the employer to pay premiums to an insurance company for weekly indemnities payable to employees in case of sickness or injury. Payments received by the taxpayer under this plan were includable in his income. Joyal J. indicated that payments could be "periodic" notwithstanding that they were payable only during periods of illness or injury (as opposed to being payable during fixed periods of time), that their actual amounts would depend on the current wage levels of the employee, and that they were not paid on time.
Berty v. The Queen, 2013 DTC 1171 [at at 935], 2013 TCC 202 (Informal Procedure)
Pursuant to a court order, the taxpayer paid his former spouse one half of any bonuses he received from employment. Bédard J found that such amounts were not "periodic" for the purposes of the "support amount" definition, given that, although a non-payment was unlikely, there was no guarantee that bonuses would be paid every year.
Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
---|---|---|
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 56.1 - Subsection 56.1(4) - Child Support Amount | 116 |