Search - consideration

In seeking an answer, gross income, net income, capital investment, cash flow, personal involvement, and other factors may be relevant considerations. ...

When it comes to fixing fair market value of shares which, as in this case, would reasonably be disposed of over a period of time, consideration need not be given to discounting the stock market price at the date of death if the price is not tending to vary, except possibly for inconvenience, extra costs, and the fact that cash is not at once realizable. ...

I agree. 32 The second reason is that the materials are simply the opinions of writers and thus the court cannot take them into consideration when determining the purpose, subject matter and nature of section 245, per Findlayson J.A. of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Peel (Regional Municipality) v. ...

Pascoe argued shortly before the hearing of this application, had for consideration paragraph 11(1)(l) of the old Income Tax Act which is identical with paragraph 60(b) of the present Act. ...

The question for consideration, therefore, is whether on the facts as disclosed by the evidence at this trial the profits realized from the sale by the appellant to Western Development and Power Ltd., which it acquired in 1951 and which it sold in 1960, are profits from a business or property within the meaning of Sections 3 and 4 of the Income Tax Act, and the extended meaning of ‘‘business’’ as defined in Section 139(1) (e) or as submitted by the respondent whether this Hat Creek property was acquired by the appellant for the purpose of developing it as a mine and that it was only because this purpose was frustrated by economic factors in 1956 more particularly set out. above in the resume of the evidence that the Hat Creek Mine was sold realizing therefrom a fortuitous profit by way of capital gain. ...

On these facts and submissions I am of the opinion following: In the consideration of this matter, the applicable sections of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, in the determination of this appeal are Sections 38, 4 and 139(1) (e) which read as follows: 41 3. ...

Elle doit énoncer les faits précis et produire les éléments de preuve démontrant l’existence d’une véritable question litigieuse. 215 (1) Si, par suite d’une requête en jugement sommaire, la Cour est convaincue qu’il n’existe pas de véritable question litigieuse quant à une déclaration ou à une défense, elle rend un jugement sommaire en conséquence. (2) Si la Cour est convaincue que la seule véritable question litigieuse est: a) la somme à laquelle le requérant a droit, elle peut ordonner l’instruction de cette question ou rendre un jugement sommaire assorti d’un renvoi pour détermination de la somme conformément à la règle 153; b) un point de droit, elle peut statuer sur celui-ci et rendre un jugement sommaire en conséquence. (3) Si la Cour est convaincue qu’il existe une véritable question de fait ou de droit litigieuse à l’égard d’une déclaration ou d’une défense, elle peut: a) néanmoins trancher cette question par voie de procès sommaire et rendre toute ordonnance nécessaire pour le déroulement de ce procès; b) rejeter la requête en tout ou en partie et ordonner que l’action ou toute question litigieuse non tranchée par jugement sommaire soit instruite ou que l’action se poursuive à titre d’instance à gestion spéciale. [32] The test on summary judgment is “not whether a party cannot possibly succeed at trial; rather, it is whether the case is so doubtful that it does not deserve consideration by the trier of fact at a future trial” (Lauzon v Canada (Revenue Agency), 2021 FC 431 at para 21 [Lauzon], citing Milano Pizza Ltd v 6034799 Canada Inc, 2018 FC 1112 at para 33; Kaska Dena Council v Canada, 2018 FC 218 at paras 21, 23; see also Gemak Trust v Jempak Corporation, 2022 FCA 141 at para 66). [33] When considering summary judgment, the Court is entitled to assume no new evidence will be presented at trial (Lauzon at para 21, citing Samson First Nation v Canada, 2015 FC 836 at para 94). ...

The right of respondent to be reimbursed these moneys, which it paid to appellant, involves the consideration of two questions: (i) Whether, under the general law, there is, in like circumstances, a right to recover moneys paid, and, in the affirmative, (ii) Whether this right to recover, under the general law, is barred, in the present instance, by any of the statutory provisions of the Excise Tax Act. ...

Early in 1955 he gave instructions which resulted in the incorporation of United Glass & China Imports Ltd. by Manitoba Letters Patent, dated March 22, 1955, with the following objects: “To enter upon and undertake the importing and exporting of goods, wares and merchandise of every kind, character and description, to buy and sell such goods, and to do a general import and export business; To carry on a general mercantile business as importers and dealers in all kinds of goods, wares and merchandise, whether wholesale or retail, and by means of stores, warehouses, shops or agencies in all such places as the company may deem to be profitable and advantageous; To act as commission or commercial agents in respect of all kinds of natural imported or manufactured products of every nature and description, and to buy and sell all such products upon a commission, salary or other lawful consideration; To act as agents, commission agents, commission merchants, brokers or representatives in Canada and any foreign country or countries for Canadian or foreign commercial houses and for other persons, firms or corporation.”’ ...

After a lengthy consideration of the evidence and bearing in mind that the appellant was a novice in these matters at the time, I have come to the conclusion that his explanation is sufficiently plausible to support his evidence that he did not intentionally misrepresent his income by not accounting for the sales which the Minister has added. ...