Search - consideration

While the evidence would indicate that tax considerations were never far from the minds of those directing the appellant company, the same evidence would indicate that a pattern had been established in prior years, that the amount for 1976 was reasonable and that it had been earned by Mr Brazolot. ...

There may exist a range within which differing incapacitating effects of disabilities deserve consideration for such a deduction. ...

The Board cannot take these facts into consideration. 4.03.2 Mickford Durgana — 1977 — $780 On this point with the adduced evidence, the Board has no hesitation to dismiss the appeal. ...

The appellant’s argument was as follows, and I quote paragraphs 2 and 3 of the notice of appeal: (2) Grounds of appeal The appellant disagrees with the notices of reassessment, and considers that the amounts indicated in (1) are not taxable so far as he is concerned for the following reasons: (a) the rules for appropriating capital gains and income (s 74(1) and 74(2) of the Income Tax Act) do not apply consecutively to a change of matrimonial regime from community of property to separation of property, because in order for those rules of appropriation to apply there must have been a transfer of the ownership of property, and this is impossible in the circumstances since, according to all the available precedents, the ownership of common property is indeterminate so long as the community exists; (b) this argument is also that made by Mr Marc Jolin in an address to the annual meeting in Quebec (1979) of the Canadian Tax Foundation, titled “Aspects fixcaux des régimes matrimoniaux au Québec” [tax considerations in Quebec matrimonial regimes] (see p 43 of the address); (c) this argument is also that made by Mr Pierre Dussault in an address given to the annual meeting (1974) of the Canadian Tax Foundation, titled “The taxation of spouses — A Quebec perspective” (see pp 348 to 350 of the address); (d) the validity of these arguments was confirmed on June 22, 1979 by the action of the National Assembly of Quebec in tabling Bill 42, which among other things was designed to prohibit what had previously been possible, namely the splitting of income and capital gains by the technique of changing the matrimonial regime from community of property to separation of property. ...

In the circumstances of these appeals, there is no reason to deny the appellant the classification of the promissory note as an investment, and qualified for the loss consideration available under subsection 40(2), at least to the degree that such identification so qualifies it. ...

Although the degree of activity of a corporation or its principals can, in many circumstances, be a useful guide, the source of the income and the nature of the business are essential considerations in determining whether a business is active or inactive. ...

The term of the agreement was extended from time to time so that it governed the relationship between Reasoned and Global throughout the period under consideration in these appeals. ...

Thus, I doubt that section 6(1)(e), properly construed, applies to the automobile here under consideration and I believe that section 6(1)(a) more aptly applies in the circumstances of this case. ...

In reassessing the Appellant for his 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1977 taxation years, the Respondent relied, inter alia, on the following assumptions of fact; (a) During the taxation years under appeal the Appellant was a pharmacist by profession; (b) On December 11, 1973, the Appellant purchased by way of bulk sale agreement from Mr Maurice Berke a pharmacy business under the firm name and style of Berke’s Pharmacy situation at 1101 Ste Catherine street West, in the City of Montreal: (c) As part of the consideration in purchasing the said pharmacy, the Appellant assumed a debt owing by the said vendor Mr Maurice Berke to Mr Leo Berco- vitch in the amount of $37,216, the aforementioned having been attested to in an affidavit annexed to the said bulk-sale agreement as a schedule of accounts payable by the Appellant; (d) On January 2, 1974, Mr Leo Bercovitch signed a waiver and renunciation in favour of the Appellant of his claim for the debt in the amount of $37,216 and forming part of the accounts payable by the Appellant upon the purchase of the pharmacy by way of bulk-sale agreement dated December 11, 1973; (e) the debt owed by the Appellant to Mr Leo Bercovitch in the amount of $37,216 was of a trade or business nature and as such was assumed by the Appellant upon the purchase of the said pharmacy; (f) The Respondent applied the amount of the debt as waived in favour of the Appellant to reduce the latter’s capital cost of class “8” assets as applied to his 1974 to 1977 taxation years; B. ...

MARRIAGE CONTRACT WITH RESPECT TO THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT MADE BEFORE THE NOTARY JACQUES E BEAUDDIN on June 6, 1946, RECORDED AS NUMBER 2411 IN HIS MINUTES — ORDERS the petitioner to pay the respondent a sum of $3,000.00 in consideration of the renunciation by the respondent of the rights conferred on her by the first clause of the third paragraph of the said contract. ...