Search - consideration

However, the fact remains that the description given by the parties to the contract signed by them is an important point to be taken into consideration in determining the true nature of that contract. ...

Second, it appears, from its opening words “notwithstanding subsection (1)” (which gives an unqualified right to object to an assessment (subject only to considerations of res Judicata)) to be intended to operate as a restriction on, or derogation from, subsection 165(1). ...

The Tax Convention is one such agreement as it provides, through Article 25, for a tax information exchange mechanism with a foreign country, Switzerland. [24] It is trite that “[c]ontrary to an ordinary taxing statute a tax treaty or convention must be given a liberal interpretation with a view to implementing the true intentions of the parties ”, meaning that a “literal or legalistic interpretation must be avoided when the basic object of the treaty might be defeated or frustrated in so far as the particular item under consideration is concerned” (Crown Forest Industries Ltd. v. ...

It was this consideration that led the appellant to enter into an employment contract with the hospital corporation by which he agreed in effect to limit his earnings from the performance of medical services so as to leave the hospital with sufficient working capital. ...

The issue raised by the Crown in BMO (and addressed in the reasons of this Court) was whether there was a conflict between subsections 39(2) and 40(1) of the ITA, not whether there was a conflict between subsections 39(2) and 112(3.1) of the ITA. [24] Although the wording of the relevant stop-loss provisions (subsection 112(3.1) of the ITA in BMO and subsection 40(3.6) of the ITA in this case) is an important consideration in determining how subsection 39(2) of the ITA will interact with each provision, neither party addressed the wording of subsection 112(3.1) in their memoranda. ...

The only relevant consideration from its perspective was that the assumption was a statement of mixed fact and law. ...

Johnson was seeking to appeal to the Tax Court from the 2007 CBSA letter, there is no basis for any consideration of whether he had a right of appeal arising from this letter as contemplated by subsection 216(5) of the ETA. ...

The remaining two end dates, listed in subparagraphs (iii) and (iv), are days on which the loss carryback is requested. [14] The current version of subsection 161(7), which is not materially changed from the relevant taxation year, is set out in part below. 161 (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, 161 (7) Pour le calcul des intérêts à verser en application des paragraphes (1) ou (2) sur l’impôt ou sur une partie d’un acompte provisionnel pour une année d’imposition et pour l’application de l’article 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: a) l’impôt payable par le contribuable pour l’année en vertu de la présente partie et des parties I.3, VI et VI.1 est réputé être égal à la somme qui serait payable à ce titre si les conséquences de la déduction, de la réduction ou de l’exclusion des montants ci-après n’étaient pas prises en compte: … … (iv) any amount deducted under section 118.1 in respect of a gift made in a subsequent taxation year or under section 111 in respect of a loss for a subsequent taxation year, (iv) un montant déduit, en application de l’article 118.1, à l’égard d’un don fait au cours d’une année d’imposition ultérieure ou, en application de l’article 111, à l’égard d’une perte subie pour une année d’imposition ultérieure, … … and   (b) the amount by which the tax payable under this Part and Parts I.3, VI and VI.1 by the taxpayer for the year is reduced as a consequence of the deduction or exclusion of amounts described in paragraph (a) is deemed to have been paid on account of the taxpayer’s tax payable under this Part for the year on the day that is 30 days after the latest of b) la somme qui est appliquée en réduction de l’impôt payable par le contribuable pour l’année en vertu de la présente partie et des parties I.3, VI et VI.1 par suite de la déduction ou de l’exclusion de montants visés à l’alinéa a) est réputée avoir été versée au titre de son impôt payable pour l’année en vertu de la présente partie le trentième jour suivant le dernier en date des jours suivants: (i) the first day immediately following that subsequent taxation year, (i) le premier jour qui suit cette année d’imposition ultérieure, (ii) the day on which the taxpayer’s or the taxpayer’s legal representative’s return of income for that subsequent taxation year was filed, (ii) le jour où la déclaration de revenu du contribuable ou de son représentant légal pour cette année d’imposition ultérieure a été produite, (iii) if an amended return of the taxpayer’s income for the year or a prescribed form amending the taxpayer’s return of income for the year was filed under subsection 49(4) or 152(6) or (6.1) or paragraph 164(6)(e), the day on which the amended return or prescribed form was filed, and (iii) le jour où une déclaration de revenu modifiée du contribuable pour l’année a été produite ou un formulaire prescrit modifiant sa déclaration de revenu pour l’année a été présenté conformément au paragraphe 49(4) ou 152(6) ou (6.1) ou à l’alinéa 164(6)e), dans le cas où il y a une telle production ou présentation, (iv) where, as a consequence of a request in writing, the Minister reassessed the taxpayer’s tax for the year to take into account the deduction or exclusion, the day on which the request was made. ...

“From a consideration of all of them (the cases) we reached the conclusion that the intention of the taxpayer with respect to the operation of the farm is material.... ... In future, those insisting on obtaining tax relief in circumstances approaching those under consideration should do so through legislative channels and not through the Tax Court of Canada. ...

Secondly, he identified those factors relevant to the seriousness of the Charter violation and lastly, he identified those factors relevant to the consequences of excluding evidence. [80]            With respect to the first category, McArthur J. noted correctly that the evidence at issue was not conscriptive, which is one of the key considerations in determining whether the admission of evidence would affect the fairness of the trial. ... Another relevant consideration is whether the action which constituted constitutional violation was motivated by urgency or necessity to prevent the loss or destruction of the evidence. [83]            Finally, with respect to the last category, McArthur J. concluded that the exclusion of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. ...