Donating Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


UpperDeck last won the day on October 14

UpperDeck had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

302 Excellent

About UpperDeck

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Boating; golf; research

Recent Profile Visitors

2,634 profile views
  1. Employee Travel a Taxable Benefit?

    Presuming you are not referring to HST or AIF, are you calculating the value of your travel and including that amount in the calculation of your total annual income? I think the argument mentioned on the first page of this thread is compelling; the seat is not available to the employee unless empty once the flight is closed. It can't then be sold to the general public and has nil value. If it DOES have a value then every empty seat is an income expense to the company and hence deductible.
  2. Employee Travel a Taxable Benefit?

    6 (1) There shall be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year as income from an office or employment such of the following amounts as are applicable Marginal note:Value of benefits (a) the value of board, lodging and other benefits of any kind whatever received or enjoyed by the taxpayer, or by a person who does not deal at arm’s length with the taxpayer, in the year in respect of, in the course of, or by virtue of the taxpayer’s office or employment, except any benefit....... This is the wording of the statute...Income Tax Act....and it is the judicial interpretation of these words that govern. The CRA offers "guidance" via interpretation bulletins as to how it applies the statutory provisions based upon existing case law and its "expertise". It is my understanding that it is the CRA that has indicated that a benefit available to the general public is not a a taxable benefit when enjoyed by an employee. The Act is very specific in addressing the issue of automobiles and the inclusion or exclusion of allowances from income. Given that specificity and notwithstanding the words " other benefits of any kind whatever" above, it might be argued that sub-paragraph (a) above governs the interpretation of the section.....board, lodging and similar benefits within that class. As an aside, within the subsection dealing with the taxation ( or exclusion) of automobile allowances etc. there is the following; PARKING (1.1) For the purposes of this section, an amount or a benefit in respect of the use of a motor vehicle by a taxpayer does not include any amount or benefit related to the parking of the vehicle.
  3. Mysteries Solvied

    Assume I'm a "player" and everyone knows I'm a player. When I invite you over.....and you come.....is it unreasonable for me to assume you've "agreed"? You want a starring role and I'm the guy who decides. I'm trading my power of assignment for your "concession". Abuse of authority, perhaps but a consensual arrangement? All of the stories published indicate that the women arrived at his inner sanctum by arrangement but were taken aback by his requests and his attire ( a bath robe). Apparently, when they " declined" the implicit ( and express) invitations, they were free to leave. There was no suggestion of physical compulsion. Reprehensible behaviour maybe, but where is the offense when you ask" Do you want to watch me shower?" and you simply watch them walk out in acceptance of their refusal?
  4. Employee Travel a Taxable Benefit?

    And.....what about free travel ( including airfare in the class to which they are entitled) not only for the member but also for a " designated person" ( not a spouse). Not for commuting, however.
  5. Employee Travel a Taxable Benefit?

    There was no attempt to vary the law; rather it was the interpretation of existing statute by some functionary. The difficulty is.....was the interpretation of that mid-level " expert" correct? One may object to the practical consequence but in that event, it is the statute that should be amended. The CRA made a ruling on the definition of "active business" ( disallowing a deduction). That ruling was upheld by the Tax Court but over-ruled by the Federal Court. In short the CRA can ASSERT a position; it does not mean it's right. And I agree that the provision of a "first come; first served" parking facility should not be treated as a taxable benefit.
  6. Just read the Globe story that the CRA has decided that retail employee discounts not available to the general public are a " taxable benefit" to be added to income. Hard-pressed to distinguish a reduced price on a pair of jeans ( retail workers) from a 50% meal for restaurant employees from a standby "J" pass. However, the submission of Air Canada is that the passes are a " gift" and not a right. I would think that retailers would say the same. Hope that prevails.....an award pass from MIA to SYD return has a value I'd hate to have added to income to be taxed!!
  7. Emirates Event

    Maybe it was a REALLY short haul flight? The Emirates flight I was on had a service manager ( rarely seen) and three or four service managers. They were constantly on the move supervising the upteen FA's. The flight crew were from Ontario ( it was a 380) as were many of the FA's. The point is.....there was NOT a "CSD" but regardless of nomenclature, it would be hard for any cabin crew to engage in a mutinous act without that fact becoming local knowledge pretty damn quickly. Defcon....the Captain on my flight knew you. You should ask him directly rather than rely upon a "retired pilot with an OAL with a friend.....( joking!)
  8. Emirates Event

    There's a story??? Methinks that if there was in fact a "melee" as suggested, there would be more corrobative information. Suggest that belief should be suspended "pending".
  9. Defcon.... Actually, I was mistaken in my belief that the source of the odour and noise was ascertained in flight. I am now told that it was learned on the ground at destination that a piece of equipment was malfunctioning. I do not know how the flight crew detemined that there was no continuing need for concern. The cabin crew were not given additional information and knew only that the odour dissopated though the noise continued. I am assuming that the flight crew knew that there was nothing in the suspect area that would occasion an immediate emergency and given the lack of instrument warning and the transient nature of the odour, continuation of the flight was justified.
  10. Question answered by pm. So often ( too often?), it all comes down to effective communication between flight crew and cabin crew. You ( flight crew) may be totally confident everything is fine but poor old cabin crew standing back there puckered might find a few informed words of some comfort. Just a thought.
  11. This is more of a question than assertion. On a recent long-haul flight, the cabin crew detected an " electrical smell" near the back galley on a 777 accompanied by a buzzing noise. The smell became stronger and was quite noticeable. The flight deck was informed and the FO inspected and acknowledged the odour. It was determined that the Captain's input was required and that it was appropriate to wait the 15 minutes until he finished his rest period. I understand an alternate was selected. Jump to the finish.....the odour dissipated though the noise continued. The flight continued to its intended destination without further ado. The cabin crew were advised that the issue was " probably" *******, There was no de-briefing My question....at what point is the command decision made to divert and get on the ground; visible smoke or flight deck warnings? Obviously, the Captain and his crew decided that there was no reason to worry about flight integrity but I wonder how they made that determination when the origin of the noise and smell wasn't identified nor inspected.
  12. Seat Selection

    Aren't those the doors depicted on 15 and 16? Given that 17 was characterized as an exit, what consituted the exit facility?
  13. Food trolley injuries statistic

    And no one thought of CUPE? All workplace injuries are reported by FA's to CUPE. Since most food trolley injuries are suffered by FA's......
  14. SFO Incident

    Anonymous... I don't know whether you are referring to me in your post. If so, I regret your apparent need to belittle and diminish. It is not the first time you questioned my motives and on the last occasion, it seemed you had an ulterior motive. My interest in aviation and aviation-related issues arises primarily because of my association and friendship with flight crew and cabin crew over a period of more than 30 years. I travel extensively. I very frequently do so in the company of my wife who has worked as a flight attendant for 36 years. Every time my wife boards an aircraft she is placing her trust ( and life) in the hands of pilots. Cradled within those hands are in fact many lives. You have " no idea why he cares so much...." Does that assist? I get my facts " from newspapers and internet bulletin boards"? No sir....I do not. I do not frequent any aviation-related forums other than the AEF. The news article I most recently referenced was in fact accessed on this forum under News Feeds. I did read about the incident in a news release accessed on Flipboard but I thereafter spoke by phone and communicated by email with pilots known to me and whom I consider friends. I relied far more upon their input than on anything read in internet news accounts. Most of the pilots that i associate with I met through boating. They include pilots at American, Southwest, and Delta. To suggest that everyone with an interest in this incident should sit aside quietly and await the report of the NTSB is to deny the legitimacy of well-intenioned, sincere and legitimate dialogue. And the purpose of this forum is to facilitate and indeed encourage such dialogue. Labelling a contributor as a " troll" without reason implies an intent to silence and is disrespectful and contrary to the guidelines enunciated by the Administrator.
  15. SFO Incident

    I posted the " rules" above. I think that post is on page 7. In any event, according to a recent news report, both the FAA and Air Canada asserted that the event was not a " reportable incident" and hence, the NTSB was not notified until almost 24 hours later. If the event had in fact been " reportable", the CRV would have been preserved and available for review.