Search - consideration

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. ... All these factors bear consideration and as Major J. said in the Sagaz case (above), the weight of each will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances of the case. ... In such case, serious consideration has to be given to the intent of the parties. ...

I may not fully comprehend what was contemplated when the learned Tax Court Judge suggested such a view "would in some circumstances, such as those under consideration, render the limitation period devoid of meaningful substance". ... The wording of that provision of the Income Tax Act under consideration- subsection 227.1(3)- is identical to that of subsection 323(3) of the ETA relevant to the within appeals. ... 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". ...

(Can), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 678, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the issue of whether tips should be taken into consideration in calculating unemployment insurance premiums payable by the employer pursuant to the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, 1970-71-72 (Can), c. 48, in effect at that time. ... The Minister of National Revenue took these amounts into consideration in calculating the premiums that the appellant was required to pay for the year 1978 ... Spiers & Pond Ltd., supra, the English Court of Appeal was faced with a question similar to that in the present case, namely: in calculating compensation payable under the English Workmen's Compensation Act of the time, must one take into consideration tips received by the employee? ...

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. ... All these factors bear consideration and as Major J. said in the Sagaz case (above), the weight of each will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances of the case. ... In such case, serious consideration has to be given to the intent of the parties. ...

That makes the computation of both the costs of subdividing and the probable proceeds of sales of lots a relevant consideration when estimating the price at which the transaction is likely to take place. In considering the price for which a condominium residence will likely sell, no such considerations are relevant. ... Nor does the fact that he was willing to base the capitalization rate on complexes significantly older than the subject building, one of which is in a city significantly closer to the Metropolitan Toronto Area without any consideration of the effect of these factors. [27]     Mr. ...

Cassels agreed that- as noted on page 2, paragraph D- of the audit report he had not calculated any percentage of export sales to be submitted to the auditor for consideration as an alternative prior to the assessment being issued. ... The wording of that provision of the Income Tax Act under consideration- subsection 227.1(3)- is identical to that of subsection 323(3) of the Act relevant to the within 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 consideration which was most important to the Court in determining that the fisher was self-employed was her chance to profit. ... A proper application of the test cannot be made without consideration of the realities of the fishing industry and the fact that the fishermen and the Appellant share expenses and profits. ... In relation to the fishers under consideration and in response to the Appellant's submissions, the Respondent says that the fishers did not share in the catch but that their remuneration was determined according to an arcane, historically based formula. ...

("Micro Research") which was controlled by Zink's children; q) Bank accounts were opened for these two companies at the Royal Bank in Barbados; r) Between August 27, 1985 and September 4, 1985, on the appellant's and Zink's instructions, the entire amount in the Schmidt A & A account and the entire amount in the Zink A & A account with accumulated interest were transferred, in two installments, to the Barbados bank accounts of RDM International and Micro Research respectively ($1,213,000 each) and immediately returned to Vancouver, without the interest portions, to the bank accounts of RDM Research and of Alpha Micro respectively ($1,200,000 each); s) By means of the transactions described above, the appellant and Zink caused Facilities to indirectly transfer funds in the amount of $1,200,000 to RDM Research at a time when Facilities had a liability under Part VIII of the Act of about $17,000,000; t) RDM Research gave no consideration for the $1,200,000; u) At all relevant times, none of Facilities, A & A, RDM International, RDM Research, the appellant, Zink, Zink's children or any company controlled by these companies or individuals was dealing at arm's length with any other company or individual referred to in this group; v) The indirect transfer of $1,200,000 to RDM Research was made pursuant to the direction of, or with the concurrence of, the appellant as a benefit that the appellant desired to have conferred on RDM Research and which would have been included in the appellant's income as an employee of Facilities pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Act if the transfer had been made to him; w) The appellant, knowingly or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence made an omission in his income tax return for his 1985 taxation year within the meaning of subsection 163(2) of the Act by failing to include in his income the $1,200,000 received by RDM Research and the tax payable under subparagraph 163(2)(a)(i) exceeds the tax that would have been payable if computed under subparagraph 163(2)(a)(ii) such that a federal penalty of $107,099.91 was properly levied pursuant to subsection 163(2); a provincial penalty of $53,317.39 was also levied so that total penalties were as follows: Federal $107,099.91 Provincial $ 53,317.39 Total $160,417.30 d) Minister's Application – Rule 58(1)(b) [6] Prior to the trial of these appeals the respondent's counsel brought a motion to strike out Mr. ... 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". ... There is no evidence to suggest that the appellant provided consideration to Computer or that the payment was part of a bona fide business transaction. ...

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. ... The only consideration given by the Appellant to the type of vehicle used was in the commission percentage negotiated with the drivers. ... However in the absence of there being clear evidence to the contrary the Court should give due consideration to the expressed intention of the parties. ...

For the purposes of this Appeal, the relevant conditions may be summarized as follows: a)                  the individual must be one of the two parents of the qualified dependant; b)                 the two parents must not be cohabiting spouses or common-law partners of each other; c)                  the individual and the other parent must reside with the qualified dependant on an equal or near equal basis; and d)                 the individual and the other parent must 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. [2] [4]              It appears (but is not certain) [3] that the prescribed factors to be considered in determining whether a particular individual primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of a qualified dependant are listed in section 6302 of the Income Tax Regulations. [4] Those factors are: a)                  the supervision of the daily activities and needs of the qualified dependant; b)                 the maintenance of a secure environment in which the qualified dependant resides; c)                  the arrangement of, and transportation to, medical care at regular intervals and as required for the qualified dependant; d)                 the arrangement of, participation in, and transportation to, educational, recreational, athletic or similar activities in respect of the qualified dependant; e)                  the attendance to the needs of the qualified dependant when the qualified dependant is ill or otherwise in need of the attendance of another person; f)                   the attendance to the hygienic needs of the qualified dependant on a regular basis; g)                  the provision, generally, of guidance and companionship to the qualified dependant; and h)                 the existence of a court order in respect of the qualified dependant that is valid in the jurisdiction in which the qualified dependant resides. [5]              As will be discussed below, I have found that both Ms. ... Care and Upbringing [27]         Paragraph (c) of the definition “shared-custody parent” requires that a parent 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, which, as indicated above, appear to be set out in section 6302 of the ITR. ... However, an analysis of those factors should not preclude a consideration of numerical or measurable factors, in particular the amount of time spent by each parent with the child. [49]         The same dictionary defines the word “near,” when used as an adverb (which it is in the phrase “equal or near equal basis”), as meaning “1 … to or at a short distance in space or time.… 2 closely.… 3 … almost, nearly….” [28] Thus, in the statutory definition of the term “shared-custody parent,” the phrase “near equal” presumably means a short amount of time from being equal, closely equal, almost equal or nearly equal. (2) Principles to be applied [50]         Since, as noted in Van Boekel, it is necessary to compare the time spent by each parent with the qualified dependant, a numerical comparison is an essential factor to consider (although, as Woods J observed, in some situations other circumstances may also require consideration). ...