Search - considered

The Queen, 82 DTC 6212, [1982] CTC 226 (FCTD), aff'd 85 DTC 5001, [1984] CTC 659 (FCA)-- summary under Subsection 248(28) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(28) An argument that the phrase "taxable income earned in the year" should be interpreted as referring to taxable income before the deduction of any loss carry-backs, thereby permitting a 15% mining tax credit to be calculated on the basis of the larger grossed-up amount, was rejected "for the simple reason that the loss carry-back has already been considered in computing taxable income and failing a very clear provision of the Act to that effect, the same deduction should not be taken into account twice". ...

CRA had relied on the GAAR Committee’s analysis of a similar case in deciding to assess the taxpayer under GAAR, so that a GAAR Committee review of the taxpayer’s transactions was considered unnecessary. After noting (at para. 85) that “[i]f the GAAR Committee had considered the Appellant’s case, there is no doubt that the Appellant would be entitled to discovery of all non‑privileged documents considered by the GAAR Committee in deciding to assess the Appellant under the GAAR,” Owen J stated (at para. 86): [T]he Appellant is equally entitled to all non-privileged documents considered by the GAAR Committee in deciding to assess under the GAAR the unrelated taxpayer described in the Similar Case Excerpt because that decision directly resulted in the subsequent decision to assess the Appellant under the GAAR. Consequently, the documents considered by the GAAR Committee in making the first decision are in effect the basis for the CRA’s subsequent decision to assess the Appellant …. ...

The CRA auditor had considered such documents (which he had placed in the file) but had not relied on them in auditing the taxpayer. ... CRA had relied on the GAAR Committee’s analysis of a similar case in deciding to assess the taxpayer under GAAR, so that a GAAR Committee review of the taxpayer’s transactions was considered unnecessary. After noting (at para. 85) that “[i]f the GAAR Committee had considered the Appellant’s case, there is no doubt that the Appellant would be entitled to discovery of all non‑privileged documents considered by the GAAR Committee in deciding to assess the Appellant under the GAAR,” Owen J stated (at para. 86): [T]he Appellant is equally entitled to all non-privileged documents considered by the GAAR Committee in deciding to assess under the GAAR the unrelated taxpayer described in the Similar Case … because that decision directly resulted in the subsequent decision to assess the Appellant under the GAAR. ...

., 99 DTC 458, [1999] 2 CTC 2173 (TCC)-- summary under Purpose/Intention Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Purpose/Intention "it may reasonably be considered" imported an objective test Before going on to accept evidence that stock dividends that produced the result described in s. 15(1.1) were not declared with that purpose in mind, Rowe D.J. stated (at p. 464): "In my view the addition of the words 'it may reasonably be considered' in subsection 15(1.1) does not detract from the validity of examining the definition of 'purpose' as it pertains to the intention, end, aim, object, plan, project or goal to be accomplished or achieved. ... It is apparent the standard to be applied against the taxpayer is much more stringent than where the language of the legislation used the word 'desired' as in subsection 56(2) of the Act as considered by the Federal Court of Appeal in Jones v. ...

After referring to the Quebec equivalent of s. 67, and in finding that the taxpayer had not met its burden of establishing that such assessments were incorrect, Allen JCQ stated (at paras. 63-64, TaxInterpretations translation): How can the plaintiff challenge the presumption of correctness of the notices of assessment where the 7.89% rate, considered to be reasonable and adopted by the defendant, falls within the range that its own expert considered to be a reasonable rate based on the current rates in the market for obligations with similar considerations and risks during the period in litigation? Doubtless, the rate of 7.89% corresponds to the lowest rate in the range, but it nonetheless is within that range and cannot be considered to be prima facie unreasonable. ...

He further indicated (at para. 76) that s. 95(2)(b)(i) “is unclear whether only the R&D services paid for by the taxpayer are to be considered or whether all services provided between the foreign affiliate and the taxpayer should be considered.” However, he considered, given that there was no base erosion going on where the cross-border services were fully reciprocal (as here), that s. 95(2)(b)(i) should be interpreted as applying “solely to situations where a net positive amount is paid from Canada to the foreign affiliate” (para. 76) – so that s. 95(2)(b)(i) did not apply here given the greater value of the southbound services of BlackBerry. ...

Canada, 2019 FCA 19-- summary under Subsection 95(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Other Legislation/Constitution- Federal- Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure)- Section 95- Subsection 95(1) Crown must produce all documents “considered by officials involved in or consulted during” a GAAR-related audit Predecessors of the appellants had been acquired for their losses in transactions where less than 50% of their voting shares, but more than 90% of their non-voting participating shares, had been acquired. ... Miller J found (at para 32): … It is my view that in a GAAR appeal, draft documents prepared in the context of a taxpayer’s audit or considered by officials involved in or consulted during the audit and assessment of the taxpayer should be disclosed. ... Miller J examined the documents under appeal individually, finding that most of the redacted portions did not have to be produced on the basis that there was no evidence that the particular document was considered by CRA during the audit, that the redacted portions contained taxpayer information which was protected by s.241, that the redacted portion was not relevant to the taxpayers or to the appeals, or that the document was subject to solicitor-client privilege. ...

The Queen, 84 DTC 6374, [1984] CTC 387 (FCTD), rev'd 86 DTC 6348, [1986] 2CTC 108 (FCA)-- summary under Comparison of Provisions Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Comparison of Provisions "[W]here in the same Act, and in relation to the same subject matter, different words are used such choice of different words must be considered intentional and indicative of a change in meaning or a different meaning." It was considered significant that s. 13(7.1) as it read at the relevant time used the phrase "investment allowance" rather than the phrase "investment tax credit" appearing elsewhere in the Act. ...

The Queen, 92 DTC 6129, [1992] 1 CTC 26 (FCA)-- summary under Ordinary Meaning Summary Under Tax Topics- Statutory Interpretation- Ordinary Meaning After noting that the statement in the Sussex Peerage case (that "if the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense") could "no longer be considered as a satisfactory statement of the law" (p. 6132), MacGuigan J.A. found that the word "cable" should be considered to be an "open-textured" term which therefore could include devices which were not contemplated at the time of the enactment of the relevant provision, i.e., fibre optic cables. ...

The Queen, 2000 DTC 2528 (TCC)-- summary under Subsection 50(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 50- Subsection 50(1) Before going on to find that the taxpayer had realized an ABIL in his 1994 taxation year, as claimed by him, Hamlyn T.C.J. stated (at p. 2530): "A debt is usually considered to have become a bad debt when the taxpayer has exhausted all legal means of collection. The question of when a debt is to be considered uncollectible is a matter of the taxpayer's own judgment as a prudent, pragmatic, businessman. ...