Search - consideration

That factor must be taken into consideration or else the selling price of the building itself becomes too high. ... Conclusion [37]     Subsection 160(1) of the Act reads as follows: Section 160: Tax liability re property transferred not at arm's length (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 Statutes of Canada, 1952, in respect of any income from, or gain from the disposition of, the property so transferred or property 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. [38]     With all due deference to Judge Tremblay, I cannot follow his decision in Nanini, supra. ...

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 consideration: (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. ... Instead, she suggests that the major consideration the Court should take into account is the fact that the trust was established at a branch of the trustee, which was located on a reserve. [18]          Although a trust is deemed by subsection 104(2) to be an individual for the purposes of the Act, this Court bases its analysis on the situs of the source of the income. ...

[My emphasis] Paragraph 169(4)(a) of the Act concerns the documents that must be obtained in order to deduct ITCs:           A registrant may not claim an input tax credit in respect of a supply of property or a service for a reporting period unless, before filing the return in which the credit is claimed, (a) the registrant has obtained sufficient evidence in such form                                                                                                                                 containing such information as will enable the amount of the input tax credit to be determined, including any such information as may be prescribed; and Subsection 231(1) states when the net tax may be reduced by the amount of the tax relating to bad debts:       231(1) Where a particular person has made a taxable supply (other than a zero-rated supply) in the course of a commercial activity for consideration to a person with whom the particular person was dealing at arm's length and has filed a return accounting for, and remitted tax under Division II in respect of, the supply as required under this Division, to the extent that it is established that the consideration and tax have become in whole or in part a bad debt, the particular person may, in determining the net tax for the reporting period of the particular person in which the bad debt is written off in the particular person's books of account or for a reporting period that ends within four years after the end of that period, deduct an amount equal to the tax fraction of the bad debt written off. ...

No exhaustive list has been compiled and perhaps no exhaustive list can be compiled of considerations which are relevant in determining that question, nor can strict rules be laid down as to the relative weight which the various considerations should carry in particular cases. ...

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. ... In future, those insisting on obtaining tax relief in circumstances approaching those under consideration should do so through legislative channels and not through the Tax Court of Canada. ...

The Court has, with respect to the attendance, swearing and examination of witnesses, the production and inspection of documents and other matters necessary or proper for the due exercise of its jurisdiction, all such powers, rights and privileges as are vested in a superior court of record. [6]            He then went on to cite specific rules: 144.(1)     Unless these rules provide otherwise, witnesses at a hearing shall be examined orally in Court and the examination may consist of direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination. 143.(1)     Before or at the hearing, the Court may direct that evidence of a particular fact shall be given in such manner and subject to such conditions as the Court may specify and in particular that the evidence shall be given, (a)           by affidavit, (b)           by statement on oath or affirmation of information and belief, (c)           by the production of documents or of entries in books or of copies thereof, (d)           where a fact is a matter of common knowledge, either generally or in a particular place, by the production of a newspaper which contains a statement of that fact. 119.         ... (2)          In exercising its discretion to direct an examination under subsection (1), the Court shall take into account,                 (a)            the convenience of the person whom the party seeks to examine,                 (b)            the possibility that the person will be unavailable to testify at the hearing by reason of death, infirmity or sickness,                 (c)           the possibility that the person will be beyond the jurisdiction of the Court at the time of the hearing,                 (d)           the expense of bringing the person to the hearing,                 (e)           whether the witness ought to give evidence in person at the hearing, and                 (f)            any other relevant consideration. [7]            These rules he suggested must be read in light of Rule 4 which reads: 4.(1)         These rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every proceeding on its merits. (2)           Where matters are not provided for in these rules, the practice shall be determined by the Court, either on a motion for directions or after the event if no such motion has been made. [8]            Finally, though not raised specifically by Appellant's counsel, it is appropriate to produce Rule 9: 9.              ... Sripal's evidence appeared to be directly relevant; the other Guyanese witnesses would not be able to provide any evidence of movement of assets nor any documentary evidence of ownership of assets. [17]          Regarding the two key elements of reliability and necessity, the Crown argued that the Appellant had not shown either of these considerations were adequately met. ...

The other 51% of the shares were owned by George Tuffin ("Tuffin") (through a holding company) but that is not a material consideration in this appeal. ... 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". ...

The research referred to above is carried out, inter alia, in the context of sabbatical activities, such activities being defined according to each university discipline, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 3.4 and 4.8 of the Collective Agreement, which read as follows: 3.4 WORKLOAD 3.4.08 Workload assignments take into account the professor's employment regime, the university activities in which he or she is engaged, his or her career path from a teaching and research perspective, and planning considerations for the unit concerned. 4.8        SABBATICAL YEAR                         General provisions 4.8.01 A sabbatical year releases professors from their regular activities. ... The taxpayer, Mitchell, accordingly took advantage of the sabbatical leave provided for in his collective agreement and received an amount of $7,936 to cover his expenses, again, under the collective agreement. [29]     Judge Sarchuk noted that there was an employer-employee relationship between Professor Mitchell and Acadia University, which relationship was governed by a collective agreement. [30]     The Court therefore took into consideration the fact that the collective agreement stipulated or set out the purpose of sabbatical leave, to which those who qualified had an entitlement. ...

No exhaustive list has been compiled and perhaps no exhaustive list can be compiled of considerations which are relevant in determining that question, nor can strict rules be laid down as to the relative weight which the various considerations should carry in particular cases. ...

For these reasons, the Appellant's work on the third property does not constitute a substantial renovation. [8]            Section 192 of the Excise Tax Act (after April 1, 1997) reads: For the purposes of this Part, where in the course of a business of making supply of real property a person renovates or alters a residential complex of the person and the renovation or alteration is not a substantial renovation, the person shall be deemed (a)            to have made and received a taxable supply, in the province in which the complex is situated and at the earlier of the time the renovation is substantially completed and the time ownership of the complex is transferred, for consideration equal to the total of all amount each of which is an amount in respect of the renovation or alteration (other than an amount of consideration paid or payable by the person for a financial service or for any property or service in respect of which the person is required to pay tax) that would be included in determining the adjusted cost base to the person of the complex for the purposes of the Income Tax Act if the complex were capital property of the person and the person were a taxpayer under that Act; and (b)            to have paid as a recipient and to have collected as a supplier, at that time, tax in respect of the supply, calculated on the total determined under paragraph (a). [9]            Therefore section 192 applies to the Appellant who in the course of a business of making supplies of real property renovated or altered 1600 Hollywood Crescent. 349 Foul Bay Road (“349”) [10]          The Second Property, 349 Foul Bay Road (“349”) was the subject of extensive testimony. 347 was the number of the original property purchased. 347 was subdivided and a new house was built using that address. ...