Search - considered

Bowie J. found that the plans had not been entered into with considered judgment as to their commercial benefit to the taxpayers' firm. ...

The fact that (as happened twice in the course of 22 years) the directors might, if they considered that business conditions so demanded, reduce or cancel the amount that had been set up, was not a contingency which negated the fact that the amount set up in the company's books constituted an existing liability. ...

The mere keeping of such records cannot be considered part of a solicitor's work. ...

The Queen, 97 DTC 846, [1997] 1 CTC 2291 (TCC)-- summary under Substance Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Substance Payments made by Canadian franchisees to the taxpayer that were calculated as a mark-up on the value of products sold by the taxpayer to them were found not to be royalties for purposes of s. 212(1)(d) notwithstanding that, in order to avoid the application of the Robinson Patman Act, the franchise agreement provided that the mark-ups "shall be deemed to be considered a license fee charged for the license granted by the Franchise Agreement to Franchisee to use the Proprietary Marks in connection with the Franchisee's operation of an Entré Computer Center at the Center Location". ...

The Queen, 97 DTC 846, [1997] 1 CTC 2291 (TCC)-- summary under Paragraph 212(1)(d) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 212- Subsection 212(1)- Paragraph 212(1)(d) Payments made by Canadian franchisees to the taxpayer that were calculated as a mark-up on the value of products sold by the taxpayer to them were found not to be royalties for purposes of s. 212(1)(d) notwithstanding that, in order to avoid the application of the Robinson Patman Act, the franchise agreement provided that the mark-ups "shall be deemed to be considered a license fee charged for the license granted by the Franchise Agreement to Franchisee to use the Proprietary Marks in connection with the Franchisee's operation of an Entré Computer Center at the Center Location". ...

The Queen, 2009 DTC 1401, 2009 TCC 290-- summary under Subsection 163(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 163- Subsection 163(2) Before finding that a penalty imposed on the taxpayer in respect of his deliberate overvaluation by $402,225 of losses from securities transactions in the taxpayer's 2002 taxation year was entirely warranted, Tardif, J. noted (at para. 52) that the taxpayer deliberately and knowingly decided to report losses that were greatly overstated owing to circumstances he considered favourable in that the vast majority of the investors in the stock market, if not all, had sustained considerable losses. ...

Sarchuk J. indicated (at p. 871) that: There is substantial merit to the Respondent's position that what existed between the Appellant and her husband was nothing more than a domestic arrangement which was not and could not be considered to have created a legally binding agreement between them. ...

Profit- Real Estate development of raw land as income-producing land not parcticable It was admitted on examination for discovery that at the time of acquisition of non-revenue producing lands, the acquiring company considered development of the lands as revenue-producing real estate (as opposed to reselling it at a profit, as in fact occurred) as unlikely in view of the capital and expertise required for such development. ...

The payments "were not payments made without consideration and cannot therefore be considered 'gifts'.... ...

In determining whether s. 8(1)(h.1) operated so as to exclude the allowance from the taxpayer's income, Woods J. considered whether the employer's presence on the construction site was in the nature of a "permanent establishment. ...