Search - consideration

While that is far from determinative, it is entirely consistent with the relationship being one of employment and, combined with the other considerations, leans somewhat in this case towards employment ...   [32]          None of the factors or considerations leans in favour of an independent contractor relationship ...

  [36]          While one would expect a collections officer to consider carefully such a statement made by a director and co-owner, the Appellant could reasonably be expected to know if the company had assets and I am satisfied that it was reasonable for the collections officers to consider the statement in the circumstances given, among other considerations, the time that had passed since the company ceased operations. [19]   [37]          One would normally expect that using information contained in CRA files to look for bank accounts would be a step in the process of execution, especially since the CRA will frequently have some indication of a taxpayer’s financial institution ... W hat matters here is not the truth of the statement but the fact it was made since the statement is a consideration in assessing the reasonableness of the efforts made in executing the writ. ...

  [6]               Typically, the greatest challenge for this Court in deciding whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor is applying the pertinent legal considerations of intention, control, ownership of tools, financial participation, etc. to the particular facts of the case. ... Hall’s work beyond what I have already said, a consideration of control cannot be very helpful in this case ...

Friedberg, [4] the Federal Court of Appeal defined “donative intent” as a lack of expectation that a benefit or consideration would flow back to the donor, either directly or indirectly, as a result of the contribution. [5]   [13]          The CRA seeks to have access to the Account Documents.  If, as the CRA alleges, the contribution to the Global Institute was part of a scheme whereby the Appellant had all or part of his contribution returned to him via surreptitious payback transactions, then the Appellant’s assertion that he possessed donative intent would be refuted. [6] The Account Documents could serve as evidence that consideration did indeed flow back to the Appellant as a result of his contributions. ...

., a party with whom the respective partnerships were not dealing at arm’s length;   7(i)       The respective partnerships did not incur any expense in order to gain or produce income from a business during the years under appeal;   7(j)       The portion which reads: “If the amounts claimed by the respective partnerships as prepaid expenses of board and care were, in fact, paid”.   7(k)      The amounts claimed by the respective partnerships as prepaid expenses of board and care were not reasonable in the circumstances;   7(l)       The consideration for the horses purchased by the respective partnerships from Montebello Farms Inc. was payable entirely by promissory note;   7(m)     The total fair market value of the respective horse partnerships did not exceed $300,000;   7(n)      At all relevant times, neither of the respective partnerships operated a business;   7(o)      At all relevant times, neither of the respective partnerships generated any gross revenue;   7(p)      At all relevant times, neither of the respective partnerships intended to generate a profit;   7(q)      At all relevant times, the unit holders of each of the respective partnerships, including the General Partner of each, were not persons carrying on business with a view to profit;   7(t)       At the time of the transfer, in each case, the actual market value of the partnership assets at the time of transfer were grossly overstated;   7(u)      At the time of the transfer of the Preferred Shares in each corporation by the Appellant, to his RRSP, the said shares had little or no value;   7(v)      At the time of the transfer of the Preferred Shares in the respective corporations to the appellant’s RRSP, each of the respective corporations was not engaged in any business;   7(w)     The R Partnership, the R Corporations, Montebello Farms Inc., the general partner of the R Partnership and other involved parties did not deal with each other at arm’s length;   7(x)      The XIII Partnership, the XIII Corporation, Montebello Farms Inc., the general partner of the XIII Partnership and other parties did not deal with each other at arm’s length ...   [5]           At the hearing of the motion counsel for the appellant withdrew from consideration subparagraphs 7 (l) and (o) ...

The words “improvement”, “real property” and “capital property” used in subsection 208(4) are defined in subsection 123(1) of the ETA:   “capital property”, in respect of a person, means property that is, or would be if the person were a taxpayer under the Income Tax Act, capital property of the person within the meaning of that Act, other than property described in Class 12, 14 or 44 of Schedule II to the Income Tax Regulations; "improvement", in respect of property of a person, means any property or service supplied to, or goods imported by, the person for the purpose of improving the property, to the extent that the consideration paid or payable by the person for the property or service or the value of the goods is, or would be if the person were a taxpayer under the Income Tax Act, included in determining the cost or, in the case of property that is capital property of the person, the adjusted cost base to the person of the property for the purposes of that Act;   “real property” includes   (a)    in respect of property in the Province of Quebec, immovable property and every lease thereof, (b)    in respect of property in any other place in Canada, messuages, lands and tenements of every nature and description and every estate or interest in real property, whether legal or equitable, and (c)   a mobile home, a floating home and any leasehold or proprietary interest therein ...   [8]               Under the above definition, the term “improvement” includes any property or service supplied to a person for the purpose of improving property of the person, to the extent that the consideration paid or payable by the person for the property or service is included in determining, in the case of property that is capital property of the person, the adjusted cost base to the person of the property for the purposes of the Income Tax Act ...

  [7]               I turn now to address the circumstances and considerations I find relevant to Mr.  ...   [22]          In this case the ownership of tools consideration does not point in one direction or the other but is neutral.     ...

At pages 1404 and 1405, Sarchuk J. states:   …I do not accept the Appellant's position that an “indemnification principle” is an appropriate consideration in determining whether a lump sum pursuant to 147(4) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules should be awarded in this case. ...   [20]     Turning now to a consideration of the factors listed in subsection 147(3) of the Rules:   (a)    The Result of the Proceeding:            My determination of the FMV of the shares to be $3,394,342.00 was certainly more favourable to the Appellant. ...

., 2007 DTC 1754, if an analysis of the Wiebe Door factors is inconclusive then a consideration of the findings on intent becomes all the more important and decisive in the circumstances. ... If it is a consideration at all, I believe there are factors pointing in both directions. ...

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 Indian Act; (2) the type of property in question; and (3) the nature of the taxation of that property.  ... However, this approach has the advantage that it preserves the ability to deal appropriately with future cases which present considerations not previously apparent. [7] The cases in which the principle has been applied necessarily turn on their specific facts. ...