Search - consideration

However, the Court failed to give due consideration to the purpose of other provisions, and in particular subsection 166.1(7) of the Act. ... Considerations of fairness do not enter into the equation. [46]            In these provisions, Parliament has set out a detailed regime that applies to all taxpayers who wish to dispute assessments of tax. ...

Similarly, if the Decision was based on a consideration of the legal impact the Claimant’s adult adoption had on her pre-existing parent-child relationship with her deceased parents, I would expect this to be explained in the reasons. ... No question is certified for consideration by the Federal Court of Appeal. ...

The Appellant was not used to dealing with tax professionals other than H&R Block tax return preparers and she had no compellingly obvious reason to further the enquiries noted above that she already had made and or had been advised of. [38]          The matter of application of a subsection 163(2) penalty is very fact specific. [39]          In respect of the guiding jurisprudence of Torres (supra) which proposes a check-list of items to be considered as “red flags” suggestive of an enquiry, absent such enquiry wilful blindness constituting gross negligence may be found, I refer to paragraphs 25 and 26 herein which set out that the Respondent considered that many of these red flag factors did not apply in this present case. [40]          The major consideration for the Respondent was that the Appellant had signed two documents in blank. That is major consideration for me as well. However I consider that in the full context of this case, the enquiries she made and otherwise relied upon to confirm in her mind legitimacy of these tax return preparers keep the Appellant from crossing the line to gross negligence including wilful blindness that is tantamount to intentional acting. [41]          I do not attach much weight to her signing after the inserted word “per” or whether she specifically read the accompanying certification on the CRA signature blocks. ...

.), c.1 (ITA) in relation to certain amounts that were transferred to him from Yan Siang Yu, the appellant’s sister-in-law. [2]   Since the appellant and Yan Siang Yu do not deal with each other at arm’s length, section 160 of the ITA would allow the Minister of National Revenue (Minister) to assess the appellant for the tax liability of Yan Siang Yu if property is transferred to the appellant by Yan Siang Yu and provided that the assessment is limited to the lesser of the amount of the tax debt of Yan Siang Yu (as determined under that section) and the amount by which the fair market value of the property transferred exceeds any consideration given for such property. [3]   For the reasons that follow I would dismiss this appeal. ... This means that the alleged settlor, whether he is giving the property on the terms of a trust or is transferring property on trust in exchange for consideration, must employ language which clearly shows his intention that the recipient should hold on trust. ...

The Court therefore feels that the Assistant Commissioner’s consideration of the failure to enter the audit work in AIMS as being one of the determining factors is reasonable. (4)                Ms. ... In Maple Lodge Farms v Government of Canada, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2, at pp. 7–8, the Supreme Court stated that “[w]here the statutory discretion has been exercised in good faith and, where required, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and where reliance has not been placed upon considerations irrelevant or extraneous to the statutory purpose, the courts should not interfere.” ...

(c) The consideration provided by Tri-Holdings for the Ellerdale property to Mr. ... These words could have been defined or described so that the consideration of this issue would have removed unnecessary uncertainty from that portion of the nearly 300 words constituting this subsection. ...

However, our Court will also be able to take into consideration the reasonableness of the assessment using the net worth method. [21]   Although the preceding observations state that, in general, Mr.  ... Whether the depreciation expenses were taken into consideration during the net worth calculation step or at the net worth adjustment stage, it does not change the final net worth calculations in this case. [32]   Given that Mr.  ...

“The Financial Administration Act does not specify the procedure to be followed by a Minister in arriving at a recommendation, allowing the Minister to choose the procedure to be followed” (Waycobah First Nation (FC), above, at paragraph 52). [54]   Moreover, a decision to recommend or not to recommend remission is very different from a judicial decision, since it involves a considerable amount of discretion and requires the consideration of multiple factors. ... It is clear from the CRA Remission Guide that it is a legitimate factor to be taken into consideration (Waycobah First Nation (FC), above, at paragraph 36). ...

This resulted in a late filing penalty of $13,581.00. [30]   Subsection 162(11) of the Act addresses the effect of subsequent events on a taxpayer’s tax payable for the year including the calculation of a penalty: Effect of subsequent events (11) For the purpose of computing a penalty under subsection 162(1) or 162(2) in respect of a person’s return of income for a taxation year, the person’s tax payable under this Part for the year shall be determined before taking into consideration the specified future tax consequences for the year. [31]   The term “specified future tax consequences” referred to in subsection 162(11), is defined in subsection   248(1) to include the consequences of a deduction or an exclusion of an amount referred to in paragraph 161(7)(a) of the Act: Effect of carryback of loss, etc. (7) For the purpose of computing interest under subsection 161(1) or 161(2) on tax or a part of an instalment of tax for a taxation year, and for the purpose of section 163.1, (a) the tax payable under this Part and Parts I.3, VI and VI.1 by the taxpayer for the year is deemed to be the amount that it would be if the consequences of the deduction, reduction or exclusion of the following amounts were not taken into consideration:… [32]   Accordingly, the Appellant’s tax payable for the purposes of calculating the late filing penalty for the 2014 taxation year cannot take into account either the non-capital loss carryback or ITC carryback. ...

Other relevant factors to be taken into consideration include a person’s compliance history, credibility, circumstances, age and health. ... Fink to make whatever submissions were necessary to be fully heard. [35]   In Waycobah First Nation (FC), this Court held that the duty of fairness was situated at the lower end of the scale given that a decision to recommend or not recommend remission was different from a judicial decision as it involves a considerable amount of discretion and requires the consideration of multiple factors and also because remission of tax is an exception to the general principles of taxation (Waycobah First Nation FC at para 54). [36]   In my view, Mr. ...