Search - consideration

The fact is that Louise Lemay is an employee who reports to the management of the business, works on the road as a representative and supplies her own car without being reimbursed for any expenses whatsoever in consideration of her weekly gross income of $1,150.   ...

With respect to the figure for personal consumption of beverages suggested by the appellant, while it is unreasonable, the Minister had no basis on which to establish it at two percent. [24]     Taking into account all these above-mentioned considerations, I find that the appeals officer's proposal to reduce the taxable amount by 25 percent is reasonable. ...

. •       The Appellant conducted extensive research and feasibility studies and is in the final stages of opening the first unit of the multiple units planned. [2]      The respondent disallowed the ITCs claimed on the basis that the appellant, who has been registered for goods and services tax ("GST") purposes since July 21, 1997, has been claiming ITCs since 1998 but has never made any taxable supply. [3]      The respondent submits that the appellant is not engaged on a regular or continuous basis in an activity involving the supply of property or a service for a consideration, as the respondent claims it is required in order for a person to be considered as carrying on a business or a commercial activity. [4]      To be able to claim ITCs, the appellant must establish that it acquired property or a service for consumption, use or supply in the course of commercial activities pursuant to subsection 169(1) of the Excise Tax Act (" ETA "), which reads as follows:             169.1(1) Subject to this Part, where a person acquires or imports property or a service or brings it into a participating province and, during a reporting period of the person during which the person is a registrant, tax in respect of the supply, importation or bringing in becomes payable by the person or is paid by the person without having become payable, the amount determined by the following formula is an input tax credit of the person in respect of the property or service for the period: A x B where A       is the tax in respect of the supply, importation or bringing in, as the case may be, that becomes payable by the person during the reporting period or that is paid by the person during the period without having become payable; and B        is (a) where the tax is deemed under subsection 202(4) to have been paid in respect of the property on the last day of a taxation year of the person, the extent (expressed as a percentage of the total use of the property in the course of commercial activities and businesses of the person during that taxation year) to which the person used the property in the course of commercial activities of the person during that taxation year, (b) where the property or service is acquired, imported or brought into the province, as the case may be, by the person for use in improving capital property of the person, the extent (expressed as a percentage) to which the person was using the capital property in the course of commercial activities of the person immediately after the capital property or a portion thereof was last acquired or imported by the person, and (c) in any other case, the extent (expressed as a percentage) to which the person acquired or imported the property or service or brought it into the participating province, as the case may be, for consumption, use or supply in the course of commercial activities of the person. [5]      The expression "commercial activity" is defined in subsection 123(1) of the ETA as follows:             123.(1) In section 121, this Part and Schedules V to X, "commercial activity" of a person means (a) a business carried on by the person (other than a business carried on without a reasonable expectation of profit by an individual, a personal trust or a partnership, all of the members of which are individuals), except to the extent to which the business involves the making of exempt supplies by the person, (b) an adventure or concern of the person in the nature of trade (other than an adventure or concern engaged in without a reasonable expectation of profit by an individual, a personal trust or a partnership, all of the members of which are individuals), except to the extent to which the adventure or concern involves the making of exempt supplies by the person, and (c) the making of a supply (other than an exempt supply) by the person of real property of the person, including anything done by the person in the course of or in connection with the making of the supply. ...

The Québec units must be sold during the period, for the prices and subject to the considerations and conditions stipulated in writing by the builder.               2.         ...

Further, I am satisfied that the source of what little funding he had was given to him or provided in kind by other law-abiding taxpayers. [9]      Also taken into consideration in the net worth assessment were some used vehicles registered in the Appellant's name between 1999 and 2002. ...

Relevant Law [8]      The following summarizes the applicable provisions of the Excise Tax Act: 165(1) Imposition of goods and services tax- Subject to this Part, every recipient of a taxable supply made in Canada shall pay to Her Majesty in right of Canada tax in respect of the supply calculated at the rate of 7% on the value of the consideration for the supply.... (3) Zero-rated supply- The tax rate in respect of a taxable supply that is a zero-rated supply is 0%.... 221.(1) Collection of tax- Every person who makes a taxable supply shall, as agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada, collect the tax under Division II payable by the recipient in respect of the supply.... 228(1) Calculation of net tax- Every person who is required to file a return under this Division shall, in the return, calculate the net tax of the person for the reporting period for which the return is required to be filed, except... (2) Remittance- Where the net tax for a reporting period of a person is a positive amount, the person shall,... remit that amount to the Receiver General.... 123(1) Definitions-... ...

If, as is frequently the case, such a loss is not reasonably incidental to the normal income-earning activities consideration in determining deductibility in cases involving senior employees include: (a)         the extent of the senior employee's authority and control- note that if the individual was in a position to act as if he or she were an owner of the business, the loss is unlikely to meet the requirements for deductibility; If Judith were an employee, no doubt she was a senior employee, and the reasoning in paragraph 5 of the Interpretation Bulletin set out above, would apply to the present situation. [13]     For these reasons, the appeals are dismissed. ...

The Supreme Court of Canada in Stewart referred to the following objective factors listed in an earlier decision, Moldowan, as among those that would be appropriate to take into consideration: [55] The objective factors listed by Dickson, J. in Moldowan at p. 486 were: (1) the profit and loss experience in past years; (2) the taxpayer's training; (3) the taxpayer's intended course of action; and (4) the capability of the venture to show a profit. ...

(g) a taxpayer’s loss, if any, from the disposition of a property, to the extent that it is   (ii)           a loss from the disposition of a debt or other right to receive an amount, unless the debt or right, as the case may be, was acquired by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property (other than exempt income) or as consideration for the disposition of capital property to a person with whom the taxpayer was dealing at arm’s length,   [17]     In other words, the Act prescribes that a capital loss from the disposition of a debt is deemed to be nil, unless the debt was acquired for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property.   ...

Therefore, there was no employment relationship between the Appellant and Maurice Lavigne during the periods in issue. [17]     Even if I had determined that Maurice Lavigne was harvesting hemlock on behalf of the Appellant (i.e. that the Appellant owned the hemlock that was collected) I would have found that Maurice Lavigne was an independent contractor for the reasons that follow. [18]     The question of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor must be determined on a consideration of all of the circumstances of the relationship between the worker and the payor. ...