Search - considered

. … … I would have considered …relevant … the jurisdiction in which the owners of the fleets were based; the location where regular maintenance on the vehicles was conducted; the jurisdiction in which the drivers were licensed; and the location where the vehicles were kept when not in use. I may also have considered the reason why the vehicles left Canada. … Words and Phrases risks ordinarily situated ...

In the alternative, Smith J considered whether GAAR should apply even if the units in the Income Funds were qualified investments. ... After finding that the Minister’s assessment of the taxpayer respecting the RRSP income pursuant to s. 56(2) was unsupported by the wording of that provision, Smith J went on to indicate that he would have upheld the reassessments of the taxpayer in those amounts on the basis of the GAAR, but for this resulting “in a duplication of the tax which the Minister has also sought to impose on the RRSP Trust pursuant to subsection 146(10.1)” – which could not “be considered ‘reasonable in the circumstances’ as contemplated in subsection 245(5)” (para. 623). ...

The trust’s request for such an amended election was rejected by decisions made in the second-level CRA review (conducted by the Assistant Director responsible for the CRA auditor who had proposed the reassessments) on the ground (supported by the “Litt Memo prepared by an auditor) that he considered the “request to be retroactive tax planning,” which was not permissible having regard to the jurisprudence (Canada Life) on rectification. ... The Trusts are not seeking a tax advantage they had not considered at the time…. … The Minister’s delegate … imports equitable requirements specific to rectification and rescission without acknowledging any difference in the remedies sought. … They requested only the amendment of the Original Elections, as contemplated in subsection 85(7.1). ...

Pizzitelli J considered this discount to be eminently fair to the taxpayers given his finding that, on the valuation date (April 1, 2006), the prospects for a successful IPO were high (and of the founders requiring the taxpayers to sell their shares back at the formula price, quite fanciful). ... Pizzitelli J then stated (at para. 104): [T]he Appellants did not seek an independent valuation and cannot be said to have thoughtfully, deliberately and carefully considered whether the proposed IPO would affect the share price. ...

(the taxpayer in this case) or Fyled who was liable for UK corporate income tax on the superprofits allocated to Cayman LP turned, in part, on whether Fyled was to be considered as a member of the UK LLP. In finding that Fyled could not be considered to be carrying on business in common with the named partners of the UK LLP and, thus, was not a member of the UK LLP, Whipple LJ adverted to the decision of Park J in Major v Brodie [1998] STC 49, finding that two individuals (Mr and Mrs Brodie) in partnership who entered into a partnership agreement with a third person, had thereby formed a partnership of three person (known as W Murdoch and Sons). ...

" Even if the alleged indirect use could be considered, the income on the preserved assets was less than 10% of the interest on the borrowed funds. ...

The present charges were similar to those considered in Ontario Home Builders' Association v. ...

The following criteria should be considered: the profit and loss experience in past years, the taxpayer's training, the taxpayer's intended course of action, the capability of the venture as capitalized to show a profit after charging capital cost allowance. ...

The following criteria should be considered: the profit and loss experience in past years, the taxpayer's training, the taxpayer's intended course of action, the capability of the venture as capitalized to show a profit after charging capital cost allowance. ...

Minister of National Revenue, 53 DTC 1185, [1953] CTC 293, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 496-- summary under Ownership Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Ownership the shares of a subsidiary of a corporation are not owned “indirectly” by the shareholders of that corporation Whether a corporation (the Western Company) was related to its two equal corporate shareholders (the Alberta Company and the Saskatchewan Company) under s.36(4)(b)(iii) of the 1948 Act turned, in part, on whether the related individuals owning all the shares of the Alberta Company and the Saskatchewan Company were to be considered as “owning] directly or indirectly” the shares of the Western Company. ...