Search - considered

According to the evidence, the period that can be considered as a building construction period within the meaning of TA section 135.4 LI is a four-month period, from April 12, 2013 to July 17, 2013.... [E]xpenses incurred before and after this period must be considered current and non-capitalizable. ...

The King, 2023 TCC 156-- summary under Business Source/Reasonable Expectation of Profit Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 3- Paragraph 3(a)- Business Source/Reasonable Expectation of Profit no evidence to call into question the underlying assumption in Stewart that the taxpayer pursued her clearly-commercial farming venture for profit Before going on to find that the taxpayer’s losses from a cattle operation (which were substantial both in dollar terms and relative to the revenues) were deductible as business losses before consideration of the limitation on farming-loss deductions under s. 31, Owen J stated (at paras. 103-105): The assumption underlying the test in Stewart is that a commercial activity is undertaken for profit… Consequently, unless there is some reason to question this assumption in the circumstances of a particular case, an activity that is on its face clearly a commercial activity as opposed to a personal undertaking is considered a source of income. ... Noël, C.J. simply found that the transactions in Paletta had the “appearance” of being commercial but in fact were not “clearly commercial” when one considered all the circumstances. ...

Expense- Financing Expenditures loan received on capital account if it is an addition to borrower's capital (cf. inventory) In finding that interest paid by the taxpayer (an employed broker of an investment dealer) on a loan taken out by him in order to purchase the customer list of a departing employee was a payment "on account of capital", Major J. first responded (at para. 37) to the submission of the Minister that the Act was a complete code for the deductibility of interest so that interest payments could only be deducted if they met the requirements of specific provisions such as s. 8(1) (j) or s. 20(1) (c) by stating that “[i]t is evident from the manner in which [CRA] allows moneylenders to deduct interest payments, without reliance on any specific section of the Act, when they are calculating profits for the purposes of determining their income for the year under s. 9 that they have not adhered to this position in the past”, and noted that in other jurisdictions the question considered was whether interest payments were of a capital nature whereas in Canada, deduction was prohibited if a payment was "on account of capital". ... If the money adds to the financial capital then the payment of interest on that loan will be considered to be a payment “on account of capital”. ...

In particular, although the unitholders of the fund became shareholders of the taxpayer, this was considered not to entail an acquisition of control of the taxpayer by a group of persons. ... The questions included whether the Department of Finance considered making the 2010 SIFT amendments retroactive, why it had changed its explanatory notes to say that s. 256(7)(c.1) "clarified" rather than "extended" the change-of-control rules and whether the Attorney General agreed that initially the policy choice of the SIFT conversion rules was to allow the use of existing corporations. ...

If Parliament had wanted them to be considered, it would have clearly so stated in subsection 245(4) of the Act, as it has done in a number of other provisions of the Act. Furthermore, even if Reg. 1100(11) could be considered in determining whether there was an abuse, there was none, given that it is quite common for a shareholder (or partner) to borrow in order to provide capital, and given that s. 245 cannot be used by the Minister as a tool to force taxpayers to structure a transaction in a manner most favourable to the tax authorities. ...

All circumstances must be considered.... [I]t is clear that for the "purpose" test in paragraph 20(1)(c), the use of funds by the borrower subsidiaries can be considered as part of all the circumstances. ...

In particular, although the unitholders of the fund became shareholders of the taxpayer, this was considered not to entail an acquisition of control of the taxpayer by a group of persons. ... The questions included whether the Department of Finance considered making the 2010 SIFT amendments retroactive, why it had changed its explanatory notes to say that s. 256(7)(c.1) "clarified" rather than "extended" the change-of-control rules and whether the Attorney General agreed that initially the policy choice of the SIFT conversion rules was to allow the use of existing corporations. ...

CRA considered that there was a requirement to recognize deemed interest income on the notes under Reg. 7000(2)(d) given that, in contrast to the usual equity-linked notes that were available to investors at the time, these notes had “internal puts,” i.e., SLT had the right to terminate the notes at any time, on 367 days’ notice, at the market value of the reference assets. On this basis, it considered that the “the maximum amount of interest thereon that could be payable thereunder in respect of that year” was the difference between the maximum value of the reference assets at the end of the year and the maximum value in the prior years, and assessed accordingly, to treat such annual increase as foreign accrual property income of SLT under element C of the s. 95(1) FAPI definition. ...

White, there is real doubt, for reasons unrelated to a desire to escape the Ramsay approach, as to whether a tax-saving scheme will be put into effect, it is easy to understand why the requisite "pre-ordained series of transactions" or "single composite transaction" should not be considered to exist. ... It by no means follows that the Ramsay approach should be incapable of applying wherever the ultimate purchaser and price cannot be identified. … The FTT considered that the sale to Merrill Lynch "sufficiently corresponded to the scheme as planned" and commented that it "would be extraordinary if the application of the Ramsay approach could be defeated by the sale being to brokers rather than to the market by brokers on behalf of the Irish Trustees" …. ...

Respecting his acceptance of the parol evidence, Hogan J first noted (at para. 32): Under the so-called “textualist” approach, parol evidence is admissible only in circumstances where the words or terms of the agreement are considered to be ambiguous (that is, when there is patent ambiguity). The “contextualist” approach, on the other hand, allows for the consideration of extrinsic evidence when there is latent ambiguity, thus making it possible for the factual matrix surrounding the contract at the time it was formed to be considered. ...