Search - consideration

The Delegate took account of the Applicant’s difficult circumstances in certain periods but balanced that consideration with the Applicant’s ability to take out a further loan for renovations and to lease cars – all of which suggests that the PTSD was not so severe that the Applicant was unable to pay his tax debt. [23]            The medical evidence likewise supported a conclusion that the Applicant, described as clinically stable and able to do physical work, could carry out normal daily functions. ...

It also commented that no books or records were ever produced. [6]                In reference to the Minister’s determination of unreported income and GST, the Tax Court commented at paragraph 51 of its decision that the appellant had admitted that she owned a substantial amount of assets and yet no explanation was provided as to non-taxable sources of funds for the amounts assessed. [7]                In largely upholding the Minister’s determinations, the Court stated its general conclusion in this way, at paragraph 48 of the decision: “Vague assertions, inconsistent challenges of actual evidence from interested and related parties and no documentary evidence cannot defeat the cogent third party documentation, disinterested testimony and logical conclusions embedded within the Minister’s alternative assessment, based upon third party records and buttressed by clear testimony at trial.” [8]                As for the assessment of gross negligence penalties, the Tax Court determined that the facts amply supported the imposition of the penalties, especially given the magnitude of the difference between the income, as reported by the appellant, and her admitted net worth and business activity. [9]                I now turn to a consideration of the issues in this appeal, and begin with the well-known standard of review described in the case of Housen v. ...

Taking the totality of evidence into consideration I accept that non-reference to cell phone expenses in the 2011 T2200, while included in each of the sandwiching years’ 2010 and 2012 T2200s, was unintended. ...

However, where the pleaded assumptions of fact are exclusively or peculiarly within the Minister’s knowledge, placing the onus of proof on the taxpayer could create unfair consequences that, in some cases, would justify a reverse onus. [10] [14]   Essentially, this is a factual issue. [11] However, this issue must be addressed with by the judge who will hear the dispute on the merits and who will also have to decide any question of procedural fairness as to whether the appellant can argue a point that was not raised at the pleading stage. [15]   For the purposes of the motion for particulars, the only consideration at this stage is whether the moving party needs the requested information to be able to formulate its reply. ...

Furthermore, he submitted that on a consideration of all the circumstances of these appeals a stay of proceedings is not justified.   ...

Her report set out her recommendation that no further relief be granted. [28]   The Officer’s team leader approved her recommendation. [29]   The second level Officer’s report considered all of the factors outlined in Information Circular 07-1R1, which is publicly available, as well as several other relevant considerations. ...

The Minister’s Decision applied the Taxpayer Relief Provisions, and was based on a proper consideration of the following facts: There were no circumstances beyond the control of the Applicant that prevented her from applying within the prescribed time period; No actions of any employee of the CRA caused delay to the Applicant; The impugned wording in the Guide is not incorrect or inaccurate. [22]   Page 10 of the Guide states that a taxpayer is eligible for a Provincial Rebate in two scenarios: if they are eligible to claim some of the federal part of HST as a Federal Rebate, or if they would be eligible to claim a Federal Rebate but for the value of their home exceeding $450,000. ...

The term “shared-custody parent” is defined in section 122.6 of the Act: 122.6 shared-custody parent  in respect of a qualified dependant 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. [5]   The specific question is whether Ms. ...

With respect to his former spouse, her income was taken into consideration in the Guideline calculation and the income amount is referenced in that order. ...

Wong argues that she was treated unfairly, because (1) they were interviewed on September 8, 2017 and the decision was rendered 16 months later on January 4, 2019; (2) they received no substantial response to their inquiries regarding the status of their application; (3) they were not provided an opportunity to submit updated information; (4) the Officer raised her voice during questioning, pressured her, and failed to take breaks; (5) the Officer has a mechanistic approach to the case; and (6) the Officer was inexperienced and defaulted to follow standard practice. [9]   The Minister responds that there are two distinct tests under subsection 4(1) of the Regulations and that, on judicial review, the applicant must show that the officer failed to consider both prongs of the test to prove a reviewable error (Onwubolu v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2018 FC 19 at paras 13, 15 [Onwubolu]; Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1077 at paras 20, 29; Sandhu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1061 at para 24). [10]   The Minister adds that the Officer’s decision is reasonable and reflected her consideration and assessment of the totality of the evidence. ...