Search - considered

MNR, 63 DTC 1129 that payments made by a corporation to its shareholder were partly deductible to the corporation, Noel J. went on to note in this case that this finding did not establish that the payments were income receipts to the taxpayer (p. 1143): "It has often been held that the fact that a payor considered payments as capital expenditures or income expenses does not necessarily mean that the nature of these payments could not change when considered from the point of view of the recipient. ...

However, in allowing the application for judicial review on the basis that the Minister’s delegate had not considered the possibility that the T1135 returns for the earlier (2005 to 2010) returns were filed voluntarily, i.e., not subject to likely enforcement action, he stated (at paras 27, 30): …Although the enforcement action regarding the Applicant’s 2011-2013 T2 returns is clearly considered by the VDP program to be enforcement action regarding the 2005-2010 period, I do not believe the Minister’s Delegate has provided adequate reasons to support her finding that this enforcement action would likely have uncovered the Applicant’s 2005-2010 T1135 filing obligation. …[T]he CRA officer’s notes do not show that he considered the possibility that some, but not all, of the disclosure may have been voluntary. ... Nothing in the decision shows that the Minister’s Delegate even considered the DOJ letter, nor does the Decision explain why the Minister’s Delegate believed that the CRA’s enforcement action was likely to uncover the Applicant’s 2005-2010 T1135 returns. ...

Regarding the point made in Doubinin that a tax benefit would not typically be considered a "benefit" vitiating a charitable gift, Bowie J stated (at para. 18): I do not read [Doubinin] as purporting there to extend what was said... in Friedberg to suggest that a scheme... to claim tax credits for charitable donations in excess of the donations actually made... [to] not be considered a benefit within the context of the definition of what constitutes a gift. ...

Canada (National Revenue), 2015 FCA 178-- summary under Paragraph 172(3)(a.1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 172- Subsection 172(3)- Paragraph 172(3)(a.1) no implied procedural rules in s. 172(3)(a.1) Before confirming the reasonableness of CRA's decision to revoke the Appellant's registration, Ryer JA rejected a submission (at para. 42) that s. 172(3)(a.1) required the Minister to deliver a complete record of of all documents and materials available to the Appeals Directorate as well as those actually considered, stating (at paras. 47-48): This paragraph simply provides a right of appeal from the Confirmation Decision…. ... Accepting the Appellant's argument would have the effect of construing paragraph 172(3)(a.1) so as to implicitly provide the procedural outcome that Justice Sharlow rejected when she considered Rules 317 and 318, the directly applicable procedural dispositions. ...

Sarraf considered that a court appeal was a mere continuation of proceedings which had been commenced against the corporation by the Minister’s assessment – but Dawson JA found that Sarraf had failed to consider that the current appeal procedures were quite different from the Income War Tax Act procedures considered in a yet earlier decision. ...

The Queen, 2016 TCC 252-- summary under Sale Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 123- Subsection 123(1)- Sale University purchased books for educational supply rather than a transfer of their ownership to students Athabasca University, which provided online courses to its students and delivered printed books to them without any additional charge, was entitled to a GST rebate on its purchases of the books provided that it could be considered, as required by ETA s. 259.1(2) to have acquired the Books “otherwise than for the purpose of supply by way of sale.” Lyons J applied the single supply doctrine to find that, as the University was making a single supply of education (a service) to its students, it should be considered to have acquired the books for this “ultimate” purpose rather than for the purpose of merely transferring their ownership to the students. ...

For tax purposes, a bare trust is considered a non-entity in the sense that a beneficiary as principal, is considered to deal directly with property through the trustee as agent or nominee. ...

Green, 2017 FCA 107-- summary under Paragraph 111(1)(e) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 111- Subsection 111(1)- Paragraph 111(1)(e) upper-tier LP not required to compute income and therefore not subject to s. 111(1)(e) CRA considered that business losses incurred by lower tier partnerships (the PSLPs) were deemed to be limited partnership losses of an upper-tier LP (MLP) – which meant that they were effectively trapped in MLP given that s. 111 (and, thus, the ability to deduct limited partnership losses under s. 111(1)(e)) was only available to a taxpayer and not to a partnership such as MLP. Webb JA rejected this interpretation and considered that the PSLP business losses were also business losses rather than limited partnership losses in the hands of MLP, so that such losses could be allocated to the MLP partners in the same manner as if they had been generated in a single-tier LP. ...

However in cases where the payments are made for purchase of software as a product, the consideration paid cannot be considered to be for use of the right to use the software. ... State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) 271 ITR 401 (SC)]… Clearly, the consideration paid for purchase of goods cannot be considered as ‘royalty’. ... Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 222(Del)], this Court had reiterated the view that payment made by a reseller for the purchase of software for sale in the Indian market could by no stretch be considered as royalty.” ...

Therefore, for U.S. tax purposes, GL&V LP was considered to have made loans directly to, and received interest directly from, Holdings. ... On the other hand, if (on a broader construction) the U.S. taxes were considered to be paid in respect of such dividends because those dividends were indirectly derived from the interest paid by Holdings, the US taxes should be considered to be paid by the taxpayer in respect of the dividend income sourced from the LLC (a foreign affiliate), so that the foreign affiliate exclusion in (ii) above applied. ...