Search - consideration

Kandiah to bring himself within the requirements of section 254 of the Excise Tax Act (the  “ Act ”), which reads: (2) Where (a)        a builder of a single unit residential complex or a residential condominium unit makes a taxable supply by way of sale of the complex or unit to a particular individual, (b)        at the time the particular individual becomes liable or assumes liability under an agreement of purchase and sale of the complex or unit entered into between the builder and the particular individual, the particular individual is acquiring the complex or unit for use as the primary place of residence of the particular individual or a relation of the particular individual, (c)        the total (in this subsection referred to as the “total consideration”) of all amounts, each of which is the consideration payable for the supply to the particular individual of the complex or unit or for any other taxable supply to the particular individual of an interest in the complex or unit, is less than $450,000, (d)        the particular individual has paid all of the tax under Division II payable in respect of the supply of the complex or unit and in respect of any other supply to the individual of an interest in the complex or unit (the total of which tax under subsection 165(1) is referred to in this subsection as the “total tax paid by the particular individual”), (e)        ownership of the complex or unit is transferred to the particular individual after the construction or substantial renovation thereof is substantially completed, (f)         after the construction or substantial renovation is substantially completed and before possession of the complex or unit is given to the particular individual under the agreement of purchase and sale of the complex or unit (i)         in the case of a single unit residential complex, the complex was not occupied by any individual as a place of residence or lodging, and (ii)        in the case of a residential condominium unit, the unit was not occupied by an individual as a place of residence or lodging unless, throughout the time the complex or unit was so occupied, it was occupied as a place of residence by an individual, or a relation of an individual, who was at the time of that occupancy a purchaser of the unit under an agreement of purchase and sale of the unit, and (g)        either (i)         the first individual to occupy the complex or unit as a place of residence at any time after substantial completion of the construction or renovation is (A)       in the case of a single unit residential complex, the particular individual or a relation of the particular individual, and (B)       in the case of a residential condominium unit, an individual, or a relation of an individual, who was at that time a purchaser of the unit under an agreement of purchase and sale of the unit, or (ii)        the particular individual makes an exempt supply by way of sale of the complex or unit and ownership thereof is transferred to the recipient of the supply before the complex or unit is occupied by any individual as a place of residence or lodging, … Facts [2]              Mr. ...

  [25]      Although this Court’s Rule 152 differs in some respect from Ontario’s Rule 57.07, notably our rule does not refer to negligence but to misconduct, the words of Molloy J. and Granger J. are equally applicable to a consideration of our Rule 152 ... Those considerations do not apply here. We simply have a counsel whose behaviour towards this Court and whose failure to comply with a court order is inexcusable. ...

I will therefore limit my consideration to this one item. [11]         On discovery, Ms. ... and “When do tax considerations satisfy the purpose test?” [31]         If it were not for the potential application of the fresh step rule, the purpose test assumptions should be struck out with leave to amend to extricate the factual elements. [32]         The second question to be decided is whether this motion should be prohibited by the fresh step rule in section 8 of the Rules because the motion was brought after Gerbro undertook discoveries. [33]         Section 8 of the Rules provides: 8. ...

Petrovsky's value of the land that was used to make the assessments "was not fair or accurate" and states his reasons:   ·                     To determine the Land value, comparisons were made with other commercial land sales in the area, however, no consideration was given to the location of the property versus other comparables ... Since properties are seldom identical, considerations are made to equate for differences from the subject. ...

(b)              On January 14, 2008, the tax debtor and his spouse jointly sold an immovable located at 1275 Chénard Street in Laval (the family residence) to the appellant for a consideration of $250,000, $34,013.65 of which should have been paid by the appellant as a down payment (the contract of sale).     ...   [16]         David Bafri specified that the loan had been granted to Fiducie Alex Trust without consideration and without any security. ...

In light of such considerations, I fail to see how the applicant can assert that this was denied by the respondent. [13]         Admittedly income from marijuana was not pled in the Reply as an assumption, nonetheless the respondent referred to “Unreported Incomes” from business which included income from cocaine and income from marijuana. ... Apart from the letter relying on the wrong rule and causing confusion for all, this could have been raised and addressed during a trial management conference call that had been initiated by the Court (several days before that letter was sent) with a view to exploring the resolution of potential issues including considerations involving the scope of the expert report. [29]         Having clarified the letter during the hearing, applicant counsel then indicated that the contents of the respondent’s expert witness report would now be uncontested except for one document. ...

On that basis, the documentation and summaries related to credit card interest, books and gifts have been excluded from the Court’s consideration. ... Tax Year and Category Initial Alternative Assessment from Penalty Report Amount of Reduction of Income/ increase in Expenses Ultimate Amount of Unreported Income/ Disallowed Expenses Reported Business Income/ Expenses Percentage of Unreported to Reported Amount Percentage Decrease in Initial Assessment After Appeal 2010 Unreported Income $114,830.00 ($48,964.17) $65,865.63 $47,577.19   138% 43% 2010 Disallowed Expenses $17,297.00 ($7,121.82) $10,175.18 $18,806.55 54% 41% 2011 Unreported Income $43,011.00 Nil $43,011.00 $186,663.00 23% 0% 2011 Disallowed Expenses $166,685.00 ($122,528.79) $44,156.21 $168,752.00 26% 74% [45]         As always, the particular challenge for the Court arises in cases when the consideration of penalties occurs in the absence of knowledge or actual intent. ...

The Appellant was not used to dealing with tax professionals other than H&R Block tax return preparers and she had no compellingly obvious reason to further the enquiries noted above that she already had made and or had been advised of. [38]          The matter of application of a subsection 163(2) penalty is very fact specific. [39]          In respect of the guiding jurisprudence of Torres (supra) which proposes a check-list of items to be considered as “red flags” suggestive of an enquiry, absent such enquiry wilful blindness constituting gross negligence may be found, I refer to paragraphs 25 and 26 herein which set out that the Respondent considered that many of these red flag factors did not apply in this present case. [40]          The major consideration for the Respondent was that the Appellant had signed two documents in blank. That is major consideration for me as well. However I consider that in the full context of this case, the enquiries she made and otherwise relied upon to confirm in her mind legitimacy of these tax return preparers keep the Appellant from crossing the line to gross negligence including wilful blindness that is tantamount to intentional acting. [41]          I do not attach much weight to her signing after the inserted word “per” or whether she specifically read the accompanying certification on the CRA signature blocks. ...

(c) The consideration provided by Tri-Holdings for the Ellerdale property to Mr. ... These words could have been defined or described so that the consideration of this issue would have removed unnecessary uncertainty from that portion of the nearly 300 words constituting this subsection. ...

However, our Court will also be able to take into consideration the reasonableness of the assessment using the net worth method. [21]   Although the preceding observations state that, in general, Mr.  ... Whether the depreciation expenses were taken into consideration during the net worth calculation step or at the net worth adjustment stage, it does not change the final net worth calculations in this case. [32]   Given that Mr.  ...