Substantial question of law absent where service payments to a foreign associate were upheld on factual findings and arm's length basis.

The dispute concerned whether payments to a Canadian associate for services warranted disallowance and whether any substantial question of law arose on appeal. The matter was treated as primarily factual because the core issue was whether services had in fact been received against the payments. Earlier appellate proceedings had already accepted the assessee's position, and the Commissioner (Appeals) followed that consistent reasoning. On the facts, the Tribunal found that some services were rendered and that the payments were justified at arm's length. No substantial question of law arose, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proposed appeal raised any substantial question of law and whether the disallowance relating to payments made to the Canadian associate called for interference.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether services were actually received against the payments made to the foreign associate, which was treated as essentially a question of fact. The appellate authority and the Tribunal had already upheld the assessee's claim in similar earlier proceedings, and the Commissioner (Appeals) followed that consistent line of reasoning. On the facts, the Tribunal accepted that some services had been rendered and that the payments were justified at arm's length.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---