Search - consideration

Such property is defined in paragraph 54(d) of the Act as ‘‘any property, one-half of any amount payable to the taxpayer as consideration for the disposition of which would, if he disposed of the property, be an eligible capital amount in respect of a business within the meaning given that expression in subsection 14(1)”. ...

These may be tested by considering, inter alia in relation to a source of income, the time spent, the capital committed, the profitability both actual and potential. [10]            The Tax Court Judge, in rejecting the Appellant's appeal, adverted to these 3 considerations: [22] While the Appellant testified that he personally spent more time farming than practising dentistry during the years in question, the fact is that his dental practice's gross income increased constantly in 1992, 1993 and 1994. ...

. […], 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. ...

It is not without hesitation and anxious consideration that I have concluded that The Navigators are not a religious order. ...

This appears to me to be established by the Okalta judgment where Fauteux, J (as he then was) said at page 825 [273, 1177]: Upon the consideration of this case or any other question related to the merit of this case, we are precluded to enter, for there was no right of appeal from the decision of the Minister to the Board nor, therefore, to the Exchequer Court: the objection taken in this respect, by the respondent, before the Board and again in the Exchequer Court, should Have been decided and maintained. ...

The considerations prompting the transaction may be of such a business nature as to invest it with the character of an adventure in the nature of trade even if there is no intention of making a profit on the sale of the purchased commodity. (7) The fact that the transaction is totally different in nature from any of the other activities of the taxpayer and that he has never entered upon a transaction of that kind before or since does not, of itself, take it out of the category of being an adventure in the nature of trade. (8) It is not essential to a transaction being an adventure in the nature of trade that an organization be set up to carry it into effect or that some operation be performed on the subject matter of the transaction to make it saleable. ...

Therefore, in ascertaining the applicability of each section the same question must be asked viz. is the income under consideration derived from an active or inactive business? ...

The Former Spouse was given reasonable access to the boys. [10]         The issue in this appeal is whether the Appellant was a “shared-custody parent” for the 2010 and 2011 base taxation years. [11]         For the purposes of the CCTB section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act defines:   “cohabiting spouse or common-law partner” of an individual at any time means the person who at that time is the individual's spouse or common-law partner and who is not at that time living separate and apart from the individual and, for the purpose of this definition, a person shall not be considered to be living separate and apart from an individual at any time unless they were living separate and apart at that time, because of a breakdown of their marriage or common-law partnership, for a period of at least 90 days that includes that time;   “eligible individual” in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time (a) resides with the qualified dependant, (b) is a parent of the qualified dependant who (i) is the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant and who is not a shared-custody parent in respect of the qualified dependant, or (ii) is a shared-custody parent in respect of the qualified dependant,   … and, for the purposes of this definition,   (f) where a qualified dependant resides with the dependant's female parent, the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed to be the female parent,   “shared-custody parent” in respect of a qualified dependent [sic] at a particular time means, where the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) of the definition “eligible individual ” does not apply in respect of the qualified dependant, an individual who is one of the two parents of the qualified dependant who (a) are not at that time cohabitating spouses or common-law partners of each other, (b) reside with the qualified dependant on an equal or near equal basis, and (c) primarily fulfil the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant when residing with the qualified dependant, as determined in consideration of prescribed factors,   Period July 2011 to December 2011 [12]         According to the definition of “cohabiting spouse”, the Appellant and his Former Spouse were cohabiting for the period July 2011 to December 2011. ...

On these facts, I am unable to conclude that the payments to Bobsan fall within the ordinary meaning of the words of subparagraph 7(1)(a)(iii). [12]            This conclusion is buttressed by a consideration of the broader statutory context. ...

Consideration The principles to be applied in order to obtain an extension of time within which to appeal are not at issue. ...