Search - consideration

There is no evidence that any consideration was asked for Mr Elliot’s use of the drive shed and no amount was agreed to or paid for the use of the shed. ...

The nature of the assessment operation was clearly stated by the Chief Justice of Australia, Isaacs ACJ, in Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Clarke, (1927) 40 CLR 246 at 277: “An assessment is only the ascertainment and fixation of liability,” a definition which he had previously elaborated in The King v Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation (SA); ex parte Hooper (1926), 37 CLR 368 at 373; “An ‘assessment’ is not a piece of paper: it is an official act or operation; it is the Commissioner’s ascertainment, on consideration of all relevant circumstances, including sometimes his own opinion, of the amount of tax chargeable to a given taxpayer. ...

In order to render its decision the Board must, of necessity, take into consideration the section that provides for the married exemption, namely, paragraph 109(1)(a) of the new Act, which reads as follows: Section 109. ...

The Board cannot take into consideration the financial statements for 1972, 1973 and 1974, produced as exhibit A-1 to contradict the filed returns for the 1970 and 1971 taxation years. ...

During the year under appeal, the appellant claimed total payments of $2,439 and, in filing his income tax return, detailed the payments as follows: STATEMENT OF ALIMONY PAID IN 1974 Paid to Florence Penner, Melville, Sask—For the Months of Jan, Feb, Mar, Apl, May, June, July and Aug 1974 8 x 100 $800 4 x 50 for months Sept, Oct, Nov, and Dec 1974 200 Paid directly to daughter Wendy, attending school in Edmonton, Alta for months of Jan, Feb, Mar, Apl, May, June and July 1974— 7 x 60 420 Feb 24, 1974 190 April 11, 1974 229 May 27, 1974 250 5 x 7/0 in Aug, Sept, Oct, Nov and Dec 1974 350 TOTAL ALIMONY PAID IN 1974 $2.439 Daughter Wendy residing at 10405, 108 Ave, Edmonton The amounts deleted by the Minister were in connection with payments made to or on behalf of Wendy, and consisted of: 7 x $20 per month $140 February 24, 1974 190 April 11, 1974 229 May 27, 1974 250 5 x $30 per month 150 $959 Contentions The position of the appellant as outlined in the Notice of Appeal was: Mr Penner considered it, his responsibility to provide maintenance and support for his daughters, Virginia and Wendy and therefore it was the intention of the parties for the agreement to mean more than what it strictly Says, the meaning being that Mr Penner would make his own arrangements as to the maintenance and support directly with his daughters without interference with his wife and that he would take into consideration his responsibility for the maintenance and support. ...

There is little latitude in that phrase from the Act to allow a deduction simply because the result of an expenditure might have been additional income, or because one of the subsidiary or ancillary considerations was that it might produce income. ...

Taking all the evidence under consideration. including the fact that the Board has, for all practical purposes no knowledge of the life styles and the cost of living in India, I have concluded with some hesitation, that the appellant’s parents in 1975 did not depend upon the appellant for support and accordingly, they may not be claimed as his additional dependents for income tax purposes. ...

The Board also takes into consideration the difficulty of giving a detailed evidence for the appellant. ...

Shall be made in writing but no special form of. petition or pleadings shall be Required by the Board, unless. the Act under which the appeal is made expressly otherwise provides. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act under which an appeal is made, the Board is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence in. conducting a hearing for the purposes of that Act, and all appeals shall be dealt with by the Board as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness will permit. ...

(Exhibit R-107) (p) Tax was not the consideration when Humber was formed. ... Tax was to be considered, but it was not the consideration when this company was formed. ... The decision was based solely on insurance broking and not on tax consideration because “... ...