Search - consideration

That question is to be answered by a consideration of all the facts and a determination not only as to whether there was a partnership agreement between the respondent and his son, but also whether such an agreement governed and controlled the operation of the firm. ... I turn now to a consideration of the evidence which tends to support the submission of counsel for the Minister that the partnership deed was in fact disregarded. ...

At a directors’ meeting held on October 6, 1952, the following minute was made: ‘‘ After due consideration it was decided by the Board that it would be to the advantage of the Company and its shareholders to elect under Section 95A of the Income Tax Act to pay a 15% tax on the undistributed income as at December 31st, 1949, and to distribute the tax-free surplus so created to the shareholders, pro rata, in the form of redeemable preferred stock. ... After the most careful consideration I have reached the conclusion that the money received by the trustee from the redemption of the redeemable preferred shares was received by it as income and not as capital and was properly paid to the respective life tenants as income. ...

At page 194 he distinguished the English and Scottish cases, already quoted from, by finding that the Ontario Act applicable to the case which he had under consideration did not impose legacy duties properly so called and at page 196 held that, as the duty was imposed upon so much of the property that passed to a beneficiary, as the duty never reached the beneficiary but went to the Treasurer, no duty was leviable upon it. ... In all these Sections, 6, 10, and 11, it is the “succession” upon which the duty is assessed and levied and the succession, for the purposes of the question under consideration, by Sections 2(m) and (k) means briefly a disposition of property capable of being devised and every estate and interest therein by reason whereof any person shall become beneficially entitled thereto upon the death of any person. ...

At trial, the appellant agreed that ITCs were over claimed, but argued that they should be allowed a portion of the ITCs denied, totalling $182,622. [8] Further to the above paragraph, the appellant incorrectly claimed ITCs based upon a calculation of 13/113 of the value of the consideration identified as having been paid for goods (based on Encore’s accountant, Mr. ... The Court in Torres outlined the following principles to apply in determining if a taxpayer was wilfully blind: a) Knowledge of a false statement can be imputed by wilful blindness. b) The concept of wilful blindness can be applied to gross negligence penalties pursuant to subsection 163(2) of the Act and it is appropriate to do so in the cases before me. c) In determining wilful blindness, consideration must be given to the education and experience of the taxpayer. d) To find wilful blindness there must be a need or a suspicion for an inquiry. e) Circumstances that would indicate a need for an inquiry prior to filing, or flashing red lights as I called it in the Bhatti decision, include the following: i) the magnitude of the advantage or omission; ii) the blatantness of the false statement and how readily detectable it is; iii) the lack of acknowledgment by the tax preparer who prepared the return in the return itself; iv) unusual requests made by the tax preparer; v) the tax preparer being previously unknown to the taxpayer; vi) incomprehensible explanations by the tax preparer; vii) whether others engaged the tax preparer or warned against doing so, or the taxpayer himself or herself expresses concern about telling others. f) The final requirement for wilful blindness is that the taxpayer makes no inquiry of the tax preparer to understand the return, nor makes any inquiry of a third party, nor the CRA itself. [45] [93] In determining whether penalties should apply, I cannot find any reason why any individual reporting period before me is distinct from another. ...

The exhibit also consists of copies of forms filed with Revenue Canada by QIX (Exhibit 1-01-02-1) in which a designation was made under section 194 of the Income Tax Act that it had issued a scientific research tax credit note for a consideration received of $34,700,000 and that Part VIII tax was payable by QIX in the amount of $17,350,000 (Exhibit 1-01-02-2). ... The only documentation Johnson relied on in his consideration of the reasonableness of the Denco mark-up was Exhibit 49 a working paper of Coopers & Lybrand of July 25, 1985, used in connection with the third request for funds to be released by Canada Trust. ...

The difference cannot be stated in precise and definite terms, but each case must be determined after all of the relevant factors are taken into consideration, but the foregoing indicates in a general way the essential differences. ... In successive years his residence there was in the regular routine of his life acting entirely upon his own choice, and when one take into consideration these facts, particularly the purpose and object of his establishing that residence, the conclusion appears to be unavoidable that within the meaning of this statute he is one who is ordinarily resident at East Riverside, New Brunswick, and is therefore liable for income tax under section 9(a). ...

He is of the opinion that the mere fact that a security is authorized is not, standing alone, sufficient, but that there must in addition be some direction that the life tenant shall enjoy in specie and he finds such a direction in the will under consideration. ... Now, as I have pointed out, in the case now under consideration, the trustees are not merely given a general power to invest in unauthorized securities; they are definitely directed to invest in a particular security which would otherwise be unauthorized. ...

That is what we were claiming our SR&ED because we developed a way to do that. [25] This assumed fact was admitted by the Appellant at trial (transcript of November 25, 2024, page 156, lines 22-26). [26] This assumed fact was admitted by the Appellant at trial (transcript of November 25, 2024, page 157, lines 17-20). [27] This assumed fact was admitted by the Appellant at trial (transcript of November 25, 2024, page 157, lines 21-24). [28] With the qualification of “that’s not all we did”, this assumed fact was admitted by the Appellant at trial (transcript of November 25, 2024, page 157, line 25 to page 158, line 7). [29] With the qualification that weight was also a consideration, this assumed fact was admitted by the Appellant at trial (transcript of November 25, 2024, page 160, line 1 to page 161, line 7). [30] This assumed fact was admitted by the Appellant at trial (transcript of November 25, 2024, page 161, lines 9-11). [31] This assumed fact was admitted by the Appellant at trial (transcript of November 25, 2024, page 161, lines 12-16). [32] This assumed fact was admitted by the Appellant at trial (transcript of November 25, 2024, page 161, lines 17-20). [33] Each of these assumed facts was admitted by the Appellant at trial (transcript of November 25, 2024, page 161, lines 21-27). [34] This assumed fact was admitted by the Appellant at trial (transcript of November 25, 2024, page 161, line 28 to page 162, line 3). [35] This assumed fact was admitted by the Appellant at trial (transcript of November 25, 2024, page 162, lines 4-6). [36] This is taken from paragraph 19(gg) of the Amended Reply in 2019-894(IT)G. ... That is what we were claiming our SR&ED because we developed a way to do that. [61] Far from demolishing this assumed fact, it was admitted by the Appellant at trial (transcript of November 25, 2024, page 157, lines 21-24). [62] With the qualification that weight was also a consideration, this assumed fact was admitted by the Appellant at trial (transcript of November 25, 2024, page 160, line 1 to page 161, line 7). [63] Far from demolishing this assumed fact, it was admitted by the Appellant at trial (transcript of November 25, 2024, page 162, lines 4-6). [64] Amended Notice of Appeal in 2019-894(IT)G and Notice of Appeal in 2021-1471(IT)G at para (c)(iv)(3). [65] Mold Leaders Inc. v The King, 2023 TCC 127 at paras 57-59. [66] Mr. ...

I agree with my colleague that the motions judge, after having found that the investigation was a criminal investigation, could not use Charter considerations to authorize the use of the requirement powers. ... In Southam, supra, at para. 39, this Court illustrated how an error on a question of mixed fact and law can amount to a pure error of law subject to the correctness standard:... if a decision-maker says that the correct test requires him or her to consider A, B, C, and D, but in fact the [page258] decision-maker considers only A, B, and C, then the outcome is as if he or she had applied a law that required consideration of only A, B, and C. ... The state interest in prosecuting those who wilfully evade their taxes is of great importance, and we should be careful to avoid rendering nugatory the state's ability to investigate and obtain evidence of these offences. [121]        The absence of evidence is not an irrelevant consideration. ...

This amount was taken into consideration as a deduction in the calculation of the firm's revenue. ... [sic] balance sheet as at 31/12/78 244,919 balance sheet as at 31/12/78 Capital gain $ 80,368 Taxable capital gain $ 40,184 $10,046 Recapture of depreciation Cost at 31/12/78 $244,919 Undepreciated capital cost at 31/1 $ 38,043 31/12/78 $206,876 $51,719 * This amount is deemed by the Department as insufficient consideration. ... One of the factors that will be taken into consideration in the case of a loan or a guarantee will be the fact the loan has been made or the guarantee given for the purpose of having the borrower contribute to the production of income from the lender's current operations (Henry Freud). ...