Search - consideration

Taking into consideration all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Appellant has failed in her onus of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that the Minister acted in a capricious or arbitrary fashion in this case. ...

Edwards allegedly signed Exhibit R-3, which reads: April 14, 1989 To Whom It May Concern As of this date, I, Grace Edwards, agree to transfer 49 shares of Cinnamon Lodge Ltd. to Kenneth Malcolm Edwards in consideration of the use of his Barriere property as collateral for the necessary start-up costs for Cinnamom Lodge Ltd. ...

Based upon Exhibit R-3, the Appellants had the equity in the suites from 1989 onwards, they resided in 204 and 205 and they were their principal residence when they sold 204 and 205 on June 15, 1992. [6] In consideration for 204 and 205, Charrloam transferred to the Appellants: (i) Unit 206 in the Golden Sands, (ii) Unit 219 in the Golden Sands, and (iii) land for eight suites in Phase 2 of the "Golden Sands Resort" as the total value of $130,000. [7] On July 8, 1992, the Appellants executed a declaration of trust that they were trustees for RMF Enterprises (1992) Ltd. ...

He also testified that, as a one-man farmer on a small western farm, he used a jeep, horses and an ATV to feed cattle which grew from a herd of 10 in 1989 to 80 at the beginning of 2000. [10]     In Donnelly, supra, at page 5501, Robertson, J. said: Any doubt as to whether the taxpayer's chief source of income is farming is resolved once consideration is given to the element of profitability. ...

The objective test includes the examination of profit and loss experienced in the past years; it also examines the operational plan and background to the implementation of this plan; other criteria include the time spent on the activity, the background education and experience of the taxpayer, the time required to establish the intended business, the presence or absence of ingredients leading to profits, the record of profits and losses, the cause of the losses and the flexibility of the taxpayer to make adjustments in the face of the losses. [11]     Taking into consideration all of the circumstances of these appeals, including the testimony of the Appellants, the admissions and the documentary evidence produced at the hearing, in the light of the well-established case law, I am satisfied that the Appellants have failed in their onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that during the 1994, 1995 and 1996 taxation years, they had a reasonable expectation of profit in the trailer rental business in Key Largo, Florida. [12]     Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. ...

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”. ...

I would agree with the respondent, but only to the extent that subdivision restrictions, or for that matter minimum site requirements, in force at the date of disposition cannot be determinative of the issue under consideration. ...

It was held there that the considerations that prevent a lawyer from appearing as both counsel and witness do not apply in the case of a lay representative. ...

E‑15, as amended (the ETA), notice of which is dated June 6, 2014, for the period from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2012 (the period in question). [2]              As indicated in the notice of assessment sent to the appellant, the amounts assessed on June 6, 2014, are as follows: Adjustment made to net tax calculation $5,670.30 Interest $820.29 Penalty for failure to report $222.97 Total assessment $3,713.56 [3]              In particular, the specific adjustment to the net tax calculation is the following:   GST ITC Net Tax 2009-12-31 $1,945.95 ($648.99) $1,296.96 2010-12-31 $1,848.65 ($495.95) $1,352.70 2011-12-31 $2,159.65 ($658.48) $1,501.17 2012-12-31 $2,393.40 ($873.93) $1,519.47 [4]              In assessing the appellant, the Minister relied, inter alia, on the following findings and assumptions of fact: (a)       The facts admitted below; (b)      For the period in question the appellant is a registrant for the purposes of the ETA; (c)       The appellant has a groundskeeping business and also does snow removal in the winter [his business]; (d)      For the period in question, the appellant reported the following gross income in his statement of income regarding his business: Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 Gross income $38,919 $36,973 $43,193 $47,468 (e)       All the supplies the appellant made in the operation of his business were taxable supplies for which GST was payable by the recipients to the appellant, who was to collect and remit it to the Minister; (f)       The total of the amount representing the consideration for taxable supplies made by the appellant is greater than $30,000 for each of the periods ending on 2009-12-31, 2010-12-31, 2011-12-31 and 2012-12-31; (g)      For the period in question, the appellant was required to be a registrant for the purposes of the ETA and to collect GST on taxable supplies he made and remit it to the Minister; (h)      The Minister established the amounts of tax the appellant was to collect and remit to the Minister based on the gross income the appellant reported in his income statement for the period in question and considering the rate of the GST in force during the period in question, which was 5%; (i)        The input tax credits to which the appellant was entitled were established based on the valid supporting documents the appellant provided to the Minister when required to do so and also based on their eligibility; (j)        The Minister refused to allow the input tax credits for the appellant's driver's licence, parts for his motorcycle and insurance; (k)      On April 15, 2014, the Minister retroactively registered the appellant in the tax records for the period in question. [5]              The issue in this case is to determine whether the appellant rebutted the presumption of validity of the assessment in question under which the Minister assessed the appellant, making adjustments to the calculation of the net tax with interest and penalties. [6]              The appellant testified at the hearing and admitted the Minister's findings and assumptions of fact except paragraph (b) as written, because the Minister registered him for taxes retroactively for the period in question and paragraph (j) because he did not claim the input tax credits as described. [7]              During his testimony, the appellant stated that he was unaware that the services he provided were taxable supplies for the purposes of the ETA and that he had to collect the goods and services tax (GST) from his clients and remit it to the Receiver General of Canada after each reporting period. ...

The baseline logic is that utilization of the Federal Child Support Guidelines constitutes a commencement point which evolves, through further considerations, to an agreement between the spouses regarding conclusive “support amount(s).” ...