Search - consideration

Note that for income tax purposes, only part of these expenses were taken into consideration (see Other expenses in the already submitted T2124). i)          the appellant’s position is based on script; j)          the script shows that the appellant knowingly participated in a type of detax group in order to avoid paying tax; k)         the appellant was not involved in a business activity of any kind; l)          the appellant had no source of income with respect to his alleged business; m)        the appellant’s claim for an “exp. reimbursement as per private contract” consisted solely of personal and living expenses; n)         the appellant did not incur the claimed “exp. reimbursement as per private contract” expenses for the purpose of gaining or producing income from business or property; 2008 Other Deductions Loss o)         in filing his 2008 tax return, the appellant claimed a deduction in the amount of $89,713.35 “Due to Animator as Agent” (the previously defined Other Deductions) and claimed other income in the amount of $16,450.18 as “Miscellaneous Deposits” generating a loss of $73,263.17 (described as the “Other Deductions Loss”); p)         the Other Deductions Loss, if allowable, would have resulted in a refund of all taxes withheld at source for the 2008 taxation year; q)         the appellant claimed in his income tax return for the 2008 taxation year that the business was as an “Agent as a Transmitting Utility”; r)          the Other Deductions Loss in the amount of $73,263.17, was not in respect of the appellant’s alleged “Agent as a Transmitting Utility business”; s)         the appellant claimed that his income from this alleged business was “Moneys collected for the Animator by Agent”; t)          the appellant claimed in his 2008 tax return that the income from the “business” (detailed in paragraph 7 above) was $16,450.18 (described as Moneys collected for the Animator by agent, and are NOT reported as third parties). ...

Thus, I am drawn to the conclusion at least up to the end of 1992, the dog venture was a hobby and as structured in those years, could not have produced a profit. [18]          While these cases were decided prior to the Stewart decision, it is clear the expectation of profit is a significant consideration, though now only one factor in determining commerciality. [19]          With respect to the past profit and loss, it is not a favourable picture for the Savages. ...

On March 17, 2015 the Applicant submitted its 2005-2013 T1135 returns for consideration under the VDP. ...

“eligible individual” in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time (a) resides with the qualified dependant, (b) is a 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, (c) is resident in Canada or, where the person is the cohabiting spouse or common-law partner of a person who is deemed under subsection 250(1) to be resident in Canada throughout the taxation year that includes that time, was resident in Canada in any preceding taxation year, (d) is not described in paragraph 149(1)(a) or 149(1)(b), and (e) is, or whose cohabiting spouse or common-law partner is, a Canadian citizen or a person who (i) is a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (ii) is a temporary resident within the meaning of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, who was resident in Canada throughout the 18 month period preceding that time, or (iii) is a protected person within the meaning of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (iv) was determined before that time to be a member of a class defined in the Humanitarian Designated Classes Regulations made under the Immigration Act, and for the purposes of this definition, (f) where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant’s female parent, the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed to be the female parent, (g) the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and (h) prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing;- and- “shared-custody parent” in respect of a qualified dependent [sic] at a particular 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 cohabitating 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. [13]          I find on the evidence, summarized above, that for the earlier of the two pertinent periods- July 2012 to June 2013- Michael was a “shared-custody parent” and hence an “eligible individual”. ...

Self-assessment is based on the State’s trust in the human and corporate population. [47]          In consideration of this, every physical or a moral person must file an income tax return every year for its income and expenses, validated by relevant documentation so that it can be audited in accordance with accepted practices. [48]          With regard to the use of a commercial vehicle that is also used for personal purposes, the minimum and essential standard is using a log to collect clear and unequivocal data. [49]          In the absence of adequate annual accounting that is correctly validated by useful and relevant documents, auditing is imprecise, speculative, even arbitrary. ...

E-15, as amended (the “ ETA ”) provides that a Rebate shall be paid in the following circumstances: New housing rebate (2) Where (b) at the time the particular individual becomes liable … under an agreement of purchase and sale of the … unit …, the particular individual is acquiring the … unit for use as the primary place of residence of the particular individual or a relation of the particular individual, (g) either (i) the first individual to occupy the complex or unit as a place of residence at any time after substantial completion … is (A) in the case of a single unit residential complex, the particular individual or a relation of the particular individual, and … the Minister shall … pay a rebate to the particular individual … [4]               Secondly, because the Rebate property was purchased at a price greater than $450,000.00, the following provision concerning a rebate payable in Ontario under the New Harmonized Value-added Tax System Regulations, No. 2 is relevant: DIVISION 2 New Housing Rebates for Building and Land Definitions Rebate in Ontario (2) If an individual is entitled to claim a rebate under subsection 254(2) of the Act in respect of a residential complex that is a single unit residential complex, or a residential condominium unit, acquired for use in Ontario as the primary place of residence of the individual or of a relation of the individual, or the individual would be so entitled if the total consideration (within the meaning of paragraph 254(2)(c) of the Act) in respect of the complex were less than $450,000, for the purposes of subsection 256.21(1) of the Act, the individual is a prescribed person and the amount of a rebate in respect of the complex under that subsection is equal to the lesser of $24,000 … c)      Legally interpreting intention and occupancy concerning a rebate property [5]               The Tax Court has interpreted the statutory framework of intention and occupancy on multiple occasions. ...

The actual scope of procedural fairness depends on the kind of decision under consideration. ...

While these subjective factors form part of the considerations that the Minister may take into account, at issue is the reasonableness of the error, objectively assessed, where the applicant's case falters. [17]   The Canadian tax system is based on self-assessment, which means that it is up to each individual to ensure that they conduct their financial affairs in accordance with the lncome Tax Act: R. v McKinlay Transport Ltd. 1990 CanLll 137 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 627. ...

The appellant had retired on September 30, 2011. [7]   Due to this loss of income resulting from income from an office, employment or business, the Minister calculated the amounts for the monthly Guaranteed Income Supplement to which the appellant was entitled for the period from July 2012 to December 2012 based on the appellant’s estimated income, as provided in the OAS Act, [3] rather than on the base calendar year, as had been done for earlier periods. [8]   Moreover, since the appellant is married, his spouse’s income was also taken into consideration in order to calculate the combined income of the appellant and his spouse ...

Concluding on the factors, the Court in Bellefleur wrote: “In short, taking into consideration the criteria mentioned above, the appropriate standard of review can only be reasonableness.” ...