Search - considered

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. ...

Addy J stated (at p. 5521) that "the rental of films in Canada as in the United States forms an essential and integral part of the business of the plaintiff and that the revenues from film rentals must necessarily be considered as reasonably attributable to the business which was carried on in Canada." In particular, although "none of the production costs are incurred here and therefore none of the benefits directly attributable to the quality of production originate here…this does not mean...that the revenues themselves are not to be considered as reasonably attributable to an active business of the plaintiff carried on in Canada nor does it mean that some proportion of the revenues is to be excluded" (p. 5519). ...

The Court reversed the Tax Court, where Miller J. found that in determining the amount of the 1991 loss that was available to be deducted by the taxpayer in 1993, the Minister was entitled and required to apply the ordering provisions of s. 11(3), so that the amount of the 1991 loss that should be considered to have been utilized by the taxpayer in its 1989 taxation year was higher than the $5.8 million originally considered by the taxpayer to have been so applied. ...

The taxpayer should be considered to be a resident of the U.S. for purposes of the U.S. Treaty, and its income should be considered to be subject to full and comprehensive taxation under the U.S. ...

., 2004 DTC 6475, 2004 FCA 234-- summary under Subsection 248(10) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(10) a transaction with an independent purpose and existence nonetheless can form part of a common law series Normal course dividends paid by two public corporations (“CU” and “CUH”) which gave rise to a Part IV tax refund were considered part of the series of transactions that included s. 85(3) deemed to be received by CU and CUH in connection with a reorganization of another public company (“ATCOR”) and an acquisition by a third party (“Forest”) because, although they had an independent purpose and existence, they were part of the series of transactions that included such deemed dividends received by CU and CUH, and were appropriately assessed pursuant to s. 55(2). Rothstein JA stated (at paras. 65, 67): If the parties intend that a transaction with an independent purpose and existence will assist in achieving this composite result [of it and other transactions] and have the ability to ensure that the independent transaction is carried out and the transaction is in fact carried out, the independent transaction will be considered a part of the series. … The facts that CU and CUH intended to use both the ATCOR/Forest transactions and the normal course dividends to achieve their tax avoidance objective, that they had the ability to ensure that all the transactions would occur, and that all the transactions did indeed occur as intended are sufficient to constitute them all part of a common law series for the purposes of subsection 55(2). ...

The Queen, 2015 BCSC 1375-- summary under Solicitor-Client Privilege Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Solicitor-Client Privilege not necessary to provide legal opinion to rely on having consulted legal counsel Fitzpatrick J. found that CRA had failed to establish neglect or carelessness in the filing position of the taxpayer ("Wesbild") given that such position had been carefully considered by its in-house tax lawyer – and, furthermore, he had consulted outside counsel (Robert Kopstein). ... Fitzpatrick J. then stated (at paras. 174, 176-177): I [disagree]… that Wesbild cannot exonerate itself by merely showing there is a potential legal argument that would support the filing position and that it must show what legal arguments were actually considered before the return was filed. … The CRA invites the court to infer that there was no consideration of the legal issues by reason of the fact that Mr. ...

CRA considered that a court order was required to rectify the dating of the directors’ resolution, but did not oppose this application. Before amending the directors’ resolution nunc pro tunc to change its date to November 1, 2012, Dunphy J stated (at paras. 7, 9): This case is quite unlike… Birch Hill … decided by me…[where] [t]he rectification sought would have materially re-ordered the transaction in ways that nobody had considered at the relevant time. ...

Miller J stated: … 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 found that most of the redacted portions did not have to be produced, including on the basis that there was no evidence that the particular document was considered by CRA during the audit. ...

She noted that the municipalities themselves considered that they controlled the companies, in most cases a majority of the company’s board was named by the municipality or chosen from among a list proposed by the municipality, their budgets were approved by the municipal Councils, they received much of their financing from the municipalities and their activities were integrated with those of the municipalities. Quenneville JCQ stated (at para. 167, TaxInterpretations translation): It is important to emphasize that it is not actual control which must be considered, but rather the potential for the municipality to exercise such control. ...

In accepting this approach, Lafleur J stated (at para. 70, TaxInterpretations translation): [T]he manager or supervisor who manages the conduct of the SR&ED and the employee who analyzes the results will be considered to be directly engaged in SR&ED. ... However, more general supervisory or management activities, as well as second or third level management or supervision, will generally not be considered in this regard. ...