Search - consideration

His primary consideration was fairness- allowing the subsection 118(1) deductions where there had been de facto change of ordered primary residency of the child, with accompanying parental agreement to cease ordered support payments, pending a confirmatory order vacating support arrears. ...

Legislative provisions [18]          Concerning the CCTB, section 122.6 of the Act defines the following terms: “eligible individual” in respect of a qualified dependant at any times means a person who at that time a)       resides with the qualified dependant, b)       is the parent of the qualified dependant who (i)     is the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant and who is not a shared-custody parent in respect of the qualified dependant, or (ii)     is a shared-custody parent in respect of the qualified dependant,... and for the purposes of this definition, (f)      where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant’s female parent, the parent who primarily fulfills the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed be the female parent, (g)    the presumption referred to in paragraph 122.6 eligible individual (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and (h)    prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing; “qualified dependant” at any time means a person who at that time a)       has not attained the age of 18 years; b)       is not a person in respect of whom an amount was deducted under paragraph (a) of the description of B in subsection 118(1) in computing the tax payable under this Part by the person’s spouse or common-law partner for the base taxation year in relation to the month that includes that time, and c)       is not a person in respect of whom a special allowance under the Children’s Special Allowances Act is payable for the month that includes that time; “shared-custody parent” in respect of a qualified dependant at a time means, where the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) of the definition “eligible individual” does not apply in respect of the qualified dependant, an individual who is one of the two parents of the qualified dependant who a)         are not at that time cohabiting spouses or common-law partners of each other, b)         reside with the qualified dependant on an equal or near equal basis, and c)         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. [19]          Section 6302 of the Income Tax Regulations (the “ Regulations ”) lists the prescribed factors for determining whether a parent primarily fulfils the care and upbringing of children: 6302. ...

He also asked the Court to take into consideration that his spouse and child have significant health issues as circumstances that would justify vacating the penalty. ...

Chaplin does not appear to have given appropriate consideration to the comments that I made in respect of costs in my reasons for judgment or to have recognized that her success at trial had nothing to do with the position she advanced. [31]          The position taken by the Respondent in respect of costs was not unreasonable and the alternative position was generous. ...

It would be a distortion of that provision to construe it as a barrier to the Minister’s authority to examine income tax returns that a taxpayer has filed late, especially since the Minister can trigger the limitation period by issuing an arbitrary assessment without notifying the taxpayer. [18]            Has 607’ Canada raised a question that merits consideration? ...

Any harm that the granting of the extension would cause to the public interest is also a consideration relevant to this element of the test. ...

I do not have the authority, or, in other words, the power to reduce the applicant’s fiscal liability in consideration of his ability to pay. [31]   For all these reasons, the application for an extension of time to file a notice of objection for the periods of January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2008, is dismissed without costs. ...

The difference cannot be stated in precise and definite terms, but each case must be determined after all of the relevant factors are taken into consideration, but the foregoing indicates in a general way the essential difference. ...

It is obvious that “reasonable inquiry” entails consideration of not just what was asked, but also of response(s) received. ...

The baseline logic is that utilization of the Guidelines constitutes a commencement point which evolves, through further considerations, to an agreement between the spouses regarding conclusive “support amount(s)”. ...