Search - consideration

Analysis and Decision The most relevant provisions of the Act follow: 15(1) Where at any time in a taxation year a benefit is conferred on a shareholder,... otherwise than by... the amount or value thereof shall, except to the extent that it is deemed by section 84 to be a dividend, be included in computing the income of the shareholder for the year. 69(4) Where at any time property of a corporation has been appropriated in any manner whatever to or for the benefit of a shareholder of the corporation for no consideration or for consideration that is less than the property’s fair market value and a sale of the property at its fair market value would have increased the corporation’s income or reduced a loss of the corporation, the corporation shall be deemed to have disposed of the property, and to have received proceeds of disposition therefor equal to its fair market value, at that time. 110.6(6) Notwithstanding subsections (2) and (2.1), where an individual has a capital gain for a taxation year from the disposition of a capital property and knowingly or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence (a) fails to file a return of the individual’s income for the year within one year after the day on or before which the individual is required to file a return of the individual’s income for the year pursuant to section 150, or (b) fails to report the capital gain in the individual’s return of income for the year required to be filed pursuant to section 150, no amount may be deducted under this section in respect of the capital gain in computing the individual’s taxable income for that or any subsequent taxation year and the burden of establishing the facts justifying the denial of such an amount under this section is on the Minister. 152(7) The Minister is not bound by a return or information supplied by or on behalf of a taxpayer and, in making an assessment, may, notwithstanding a return or information so supplied or if no return has been filed, assess the tax payable under this Part. 163(2) Every person who, knowingly, or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence, has made or has participated in, assented to or acquiesced in the making of, a false statement or omission in a return, form, certificate, statement or answer (in this section referred to as a “return”) filed or made in respect of a taxation year for the purposes of this Act, is liable to a penalty of the greater of $100 and 50% of the total of... ...

.- [3] An expense cannot be said to be incurred by a taxpayer until there is an obligation to pay, [4] and it must be an obligation to pay during the year it is claimed as an expense. [5] Without consideration to GAAP and matching principals, I find from a layman’s view, the holdbacks were not expenses until the Appellants received clearance certificates. ... Appeal dismissed. 1 I Motivated by Workers’ Compensation Board legislation and other considerations, the Ap pellants require those doing work for them to be incorporated and they have assisted them in the incorporation process. 2 TNT Canada Inc. v. ...

Issues: Both counsel say that the issue for consideration is whether the evidence obtained pursuant to the seizures should be ruled inadmissible in accordance with s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. After hearing argument, however, I am satisfied that there ought to be consideration of a prior issue, that is whether the re-seizures pursuant to s. 487 of the Criminal Code were valid. ...

First, the boundary between income and capital gains cannot easily be drawn and, as a consequence, consideration of various factors, including the taxpayer’s intent at the time of acquiring the property at issue, becomes necessary for a proper determination. ... In Principles of Canadian Income Tax Law, supra, the learned authors, in discussing the applicable test in relation to the existence of a “secondary intention”, opine that “the secondary intention doctrine will not be satisfied unless the prospect of resale at a profit was an important consideration in the decision to acquire the property” (see page 337). ...

Counsel argues that individuals within the enumerated grounds of discrimination, including race and disability, are disproportionately represented among the poor and that the Court should weigh these considerations against the fact that the government has given no policy reason in support of the $5,000 Income Requirement in the CERB Act. [26] I have considered the Applicant’s submissions in support of his Charter challenge but have concluded that it is not appropriate to address the merits of his constitutional arguments because of the inadequacy of the record before me (Mackay v Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357 at 361-363 (Mackay); Forest Ethics Advocacy Association v Canada (National Energy Board), 2014 FCA 245 at para 45). ... The presentation of facts is not, as stated by the respondent, a mere technicality; rather, it is essential to a proper consideration of Charter issues. ...

I will strike both it and the title, “Preliminary Consideration” that accompanies it for the same reasons already noted above. ... The following are struck from the Notice of Appeal without leave to amend: the opening paragraph and the associated title, “Preliminary Consideration”; paragraphs, 69, 70, and 71; and Schedule 1. ...

The consideration of subordination and control leans strongly towards independent contractor status in this case for the following reasons:- Yoga instructors were able to, and did, work at other yoga studios and venues at the same time. ... Those in the supply cupboard were largely used by those clients who did not bring their own. [25] I consider the factor of tools and equipment to be a largely neutral consideration in this case. ...

These factors should then be analyzed to determine what weight they should be given in identifying the location of the property, in light of three considerations: (1) the purpose of the exemption under the /ndian Act; (2) the type of property in question; and (3) the nature of the taxation of that property. ... In light of the considerations to be applied to these findings, including, the purpose of the exemption under the /ndian Act, it is apparent that the type of property in question, is not meant to be protected from the taxation in question. ...

Alternatively, the Appellant argues that, if the sum was transferred, it was transferred for valuable consideration consisting of the fair market value for the nursing care and housekeeping services provided. ... Legislation and Jurisprudence (L-66/R3172/T0/BT0) test_marked_paragraph_end (3170) 1.012 1004_4053_4223 Subsection 160(1) reads: 160 (1) Where a person has, on or after May 1. 1951, transferred property, either directly or indirectly, by means of a trust or by any other means whatever, to (a) The person’s spouse or a person who has since become the person’s spouse, (b) a person who was under 18 years of age, or (c) a person with whom the person was not dealing at arm’s length, the following rules apply: (d) the transferee and transferor are jointly and severally liable to pay a part of the transferor’s tax under this Part for each taxation year equal to the amount by which the tax for the year is greater than it would have been if it were not for the operation of sections 74.1 to 75.1 of this Act and section 74 of the Income Tax Act, chapter 148 of the Revised Statues of Canada, 1952, in respect of any income from, or gain from the disposition of, the property so transferred or properly substituted therefor, and (e) the transferee and transferor are jointly and severally liable to pay under this Act an amount equal to the lesser of (i) the amount, if any, by which the fair market value of the property at the time it was transferred exceeds the fair market value at that time of the consideration given for the property, and (ii) the total of all amounts each of which is an amount that the transferor is liable to pay under this Act in or in respect of the taxation year in which the property was transferred or any preceding taxation year. but nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to limit the liability of the transferor under any other provision of this Act. ...

On July 9, 1990, Paula Wainberg transferred to the appellant all her right, title and interest in the Argyle property for “ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) and other good and valuable considerations” and “the Purchaser’s assuming to the complete exoneration of Vendor the existing hypothecs in favour of CIBC MORTGAGE CORPORATION registered at Montréal under No. 3368820 and CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE registered at Montréal under No. 4279689”. ... The deed of the property from Paula Wainberg further states that “The actual consideration is $150,000.” ...