Search - considered

In concluding that the taxpayer was not a Canadian-controlled private corporation (and therefore not entitled to enhanced SR&D investment tax credits) as it was subject to the de facto control of the public company, as described in s. 256(5.1), Favreau J stated (at para.35, TaxInterpretations translation) that it is now well established that the determination of the required influence for a corporation to be considered as being controlled by another requires an examination of the operational and economic decisions of the corporation in question. ...

In other word, income is considered to be from an active business only when the owner provides or makes available to the renters services so as to cause the activities at the property to go beyond the simple rental of immovable property. ...

In confirming that Télé‑Métropole had infringed Bishop’s copyright by recording the song without his permission, even though it had the right to braodcast the performance and the recording was to be used only for the two broadcasts, McLachlin J stated (at pp. 478, 484-5) [T]he rights to perform and to record a work are considered sufficiently distinct that they are generally assigned separately, and administered by different entities. … Neither the wording of the [Copyright] Act, nor the object and purpose of the Act, nor practical necessity support an interpretation of these sections which would place ephemeral recordings within the introductory paragraph to s. 3(1) rather than s. 3(1)(d) [re recording right]. ...

In the course of finding that this premium did not fall within the ambit of Rule 57.01(1)(i) of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure (similar to Rule 147(3)(j) of the Tax Court Rules), namely “any other matter relevant to the question of costs”, since it did not have anything in common with the other factors relating to costs enumerated in Rule 57.01(1) (a) to (h), Rothstein J stated that these other factors provided guidance as to the type of matters that might be considered relevant in Rule 57.01(i), and further stated (at para. 25): Indeed, the Latin maxim ejusdem generis, or the limited class rule, is helpful in determining legislative intent when a court is faced with a list of items followed by a general term. ...

A CRA statement (9527946) that “Income allocated pursuant to subsection 96(1.1)… for the purposes of the CPP provision is not considered to be from a business carried on by the retired partner and consequently such a partner is not required to contribute to CPP solely as result of receiving such income,” was incorrect, as was a Deloitte opinion that “his income was exempt from Canada Pension Plan contributions as it was a retiring allowance under subsection 96(1.1)” (para. 16). ...

Graham J considered that there was a crucial distinction between the T2059’s agreed amounts, which could not be altered by the Minister, and the allocation of the consideration, which was a purely factual matter which was merely recorded on the T2059, and which either CRA or the taxpayer were free to challenge in the Tax Court as not according with the actual facts. ...

Qun’s appeal was allowed- rather than being dismissed on the basis that the rebate instead belonged to Kwong (before giving effect to its assignment to the builder), without any explicit indication that Qun was considered to have also appealed as agent. ...

Therefore, in awarding costs under Rule 147(1), any settlement offer is simply one of the factors to be considered. ...

In finding that the Affidavit was not admissible, Sommerfeldt J stated (at para 64): Although the HWT’s 2011 tax return and notice of assessment are relevant to these Appeals and there is a presumption of admissibility, I have concluded that, in the circumstances of these Appeals, the Affidavit should not be admitted into evidence for the following reasons: a) I have not been provided with adequate justification for departing from the general rule of exclusion set out in subsection 89(1) of the Rules; b) there has been no indication that the CRA, in assessing the Appellants, used or considered any information in the HWT’s 2011 tax return or notice of assessment; and c) notice has not been given to the HWT of the Respondent’s request to introduce the HWT’s confidential taxpayer information as evidence in these Appeals. ...

In finding that such payment was not taxable, Sommerfeldt J indicated that although it could easily be considered to be a benefit that arose out of her previous employment, the principle in Tsiaprailis applied to the effect that (para. 121): where, in addition to the general provision in paragraph 6(1)(a), there is “a specific [statutory provision] containing detailed conditions for the inclusion of an amount in income that would not otherwise be income” … the general provision cannot be used “to fill in all the gaps left by” the specific provision [viz. s. 6(4)]. ...