Search - consideration

However, it is true that the appellant did not work all the weeks between February 22, 2002, and February 24, 2004, and that fact was taken into consideration. ...

In the latter cases, if the loan goes bad or the person must honour the guarantee, because income was a consideration for the loan or guarantee, the person would be eligible to deduct a portion of the amount lost as an ABIL. ...

The fact that the Appellant was not entitled to deduct the amounts claimed annually for non-capital losses of other years in computing his taxable income for the years in question is not disputed. [2]      The facts relied on by the Minister in making the assessments for the years at issue are listed in paragraph 5 of the Reply to Notice of Appeal as follows: [translation] (a)         the case arises from an internal investigation of certain employees of the Jonquière Tax Centre who set up a scheme to enable certain persons to receive fraudulent tax refunds in consideration of a commission based on a percentage of those refunds; (b)         through the issuance of a zero balance assessment dated September 21, 1998, for the 1992 taxation year, the Minister granted the Appellant an allowable business investment loss totalling $112,500 ($150,000 x 3/4), and in that regard allowed a deduction of $20,078 in computing the income; (c)         through the reassessments made on September 21, 1998, the Minister granted, in computing the Appellant's income for the 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 taxation years, $13,206, $11,522, $21,477, $19,158 and $19,041, respectively, with regard to the carry-over of a loss other than a capital loss; (d)         pursuant to those reassessments, on September 21 1998, the Appellant received an tax refund totalling $17,316.76; (e)         the claims for a business investment loss deduction for the 1992 taxation year, and then the deduction for the carry-over of a loss other than a capital loss for the 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 taxation years had been made possible by the fraudulent entry in the Department's computer system of a business investment loss totalling a gross amount of $150,000 for the 1992 taxation year; (f)          the Appellant admitted to the Minister's investigators that he had followed the suggestion of Mario Boucher, an acquaintance who offered to review his tax returns, and it was for that purpose that the Appellant gave him his social insurance number; (g)         the Appellant did not know the nature of the deduction that would be claimed on his tax returns or the total amount of the resulting refund; (h)         the Appellant told the Minister's investigators that he had never operated a business; (i)          the Appellant only acknowledged to the Minister's investigators that after he had received the $17,316.76 refund, he withdrew $5,000 for his personal use; (j)          the Appellant did not undertake any steps with the Minister, such as:             (i)          communicating with the authorities of the Jonquière Tax Centre, or             (ii)         simply returning the cheque or cheques to those authorities; (k)         the Minister is of the view that the negligence shown by the Appellant in this case is tantamount to complicity; (l)          as to the 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 taxation years, the Appellant made a misrepresentation that is attributable to neglect, carelessness or wilful default or committed fraud in filing the return for each of those years or in supplying information under this " Act;" (m)        the false deduction claimed, for the 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 taxation years, leads the Minister to believe that the Appellant, knowingly or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence, made or participated in, assented to or acquiesced in the making of, a false statement or omission in the tax returns filed for the 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 taxation years, as a result of which the tax that he would have been required to pay based on the information provided in the tax returns filed for those years was less than the amount of tax payable for those years. [3]      The Appellant denied the statements in paragraphs (a), (k), (l) and (m) above. ...

He further confirmed a representation by counsel for the Respondent that, although he had filed a Notice of Objection in relation to the 2003 reassessment, as of the hearing date, it was still under consideration by the Minister. ...

The appraiser who prepared the evaluation took into consideration that the landscaping had not been done but that figure reflected as if the landscaping was done or would be done.    ...

No consideration was given to the filing of the appeal as an application to extend. ...

He therefore had to consider whether the decision was made in good faith, based on the relevant facts disclosed by a proper hearing, not under the influence of extraneous considerations. ...

This is the point in time where actual usage and the purposes for which the automobile was made available become relevant considerations. ...

., 1989) has summed the matter up as follows:   The difference in the application of this consideration to added party and friend of the court intervention relates to the role and nature of the intervenor. ...

PERIODIC PAYMENT [21]     Consideration of another criterion allows a more clear-cut conclusion, however. ...