Search - consideration

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 difference. ...

Rather, the Act contains both objective elements-embodied in the reasonable person language-and subjective elements-inherent in individual considerations like "skill" and the idea of "comparable circumstances". ...

In so reassessing the Appellant, the Minister relied on the following assumptions:   a)         The facts stated and admitted above;   b)         In 1977, the Appellant and his spouse, Ellen Gray, purchased 141.23 acres of land located at NW 1/4 DL 341, Except Plan 8955 and Plan 9387 (the "Property");   c)         At the time the Appellant and Ellen Gray purchased the Property, they planned to use the Property as their residence;   d)         The Property contains a 1 1/2 story single family dwelling that the Appellant and his family occupied as their residence (the "Dwelling");   e)         The Property is located in the British Columbia Agricultural Land Reserve, but no zoning or land use has been assigned to the Property because of its rural nature;   f)          Subdivision of the Property is permitted;   g)         That part of the Property exceeding 1 acre contiguous to the Dwelling cannot reasonably be regarded as contributing to the use and enjoyment of the Dwelling as a residence;   h)         Over the period of ownership, the Appellant and his spouse have used the Property for a recreational area for their children, recreational farming and the purpose of earning crop shares from renting out portions of the Property to neighbouring farmers;   i)          Except for the 1989 taxation year, the Appellant and her (sic) spouse rented out the farmed portion of the Property with the rental payment to be 1/3 of the renter's resulting hay crop;   j)          At no time did the Appellant and his spouse principally use the Property in the course of carrying on a business of farming;   k)         Revenue from farming reported by the Appellant in respect of the 1998 taxation year was in respect of a crop share received as a result of renting part of the Property to a neighbouring farmer who farmed the Property;   l)          In 1998, the Appellant and his spouse disposed of certain timber located on the Property;   m)        The Appellant and his spouse received consideration of $330,787 and incurred outlays and expenses of $87,723, for a total gain of $243,064 on the disposition of the timber;   n)         the Appellant's share of the gain in respect of the disposition of the timber was $121,532 and his taxable capital gain was $91,149.   ...

(Toronto: Thomas Carswell, 2003) pages I-5 and I-9. [8]           (1838), 4 Bing N.C. 212, 132 E.R. 769. [9]           [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307. [10]          [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602. [11]          [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601. [12]          Toronto: Canvasback, 1998 (loose-leaf). [13]          Whether the OSCJ assumes that jurisdiction, there remains for consideration the Federal Court's authority pursuant to section 18 of the Federal Court Act. [14]          See for example, 422252 Alberta Ltd v. ...

The distinguishing features of "chief source of income", i.e. the taxpayer's reasonable expectation of income from his various revenue sources and his ordinary mode and habit of work, are to be analyzed in the light of considerations such as the time spent, the capital committed and the profitability both actual and potential. ...

This corporation had acquired a building for the purpose of reselling it at a profit; it had secured a loan to fund the purchase, and, in the following months and years, attempted to sell the building without success. [46]     For all these reasons, the appeals of the Appellants are allowed, and the assessments are referred back to the Minister for reconsideration and reassessment, taking into consideration the fact that the Appellants held investments in a small business corporation. ...

[25]     The respondent objected to the appellant's submitting this evidence. [26]     The Federal Court of Appeal clearly indicated that a beneficiary of a transfer of property under section 160 of the Income Tax Act was fully justified in challenging the justification for the assessment made following a transfer, under the terms of which he had received the benefit of an enrichment of his patrimony without having provided corresponding consideration. [27]     We can readily understand this logic since the taxpayer assessed under section 160 of the Income Tax Act is completely absent from the process leading to the assessment of the transferor. ...

Cases are to be dealt with as expeditiously as circumstances and considerations of fairness and justice permit. ...

The Minister of National Revenue, 53 DTC 98 to set forth the following tests for the determination of a bad debt: Among the factors which may be taking into consideration by a taxpayer who claims a deduction "as a bad debt" would be: the time element, the history of the account; the financial position of the client, the past experience of the taxpayer with the writing off of his bad debts, the general business condition in the country in a case like in the present one where the taxpayer is doing business all over Canada, the business condition in the locality where the client lives, the increase or decrease in the total sales and accounts receivable at the end of the year for which the deduction is claimed, as compared with previous years. ...

On October 1, 1990, the Appellants executed an agreement among themselves as vendors, and the Corporation, pursuant to which the Appellants agreed to sell their interests in the Partnership to the Corporation for consideration totaling $900,000, or $450,000 for each Appellant's interest. ...