Search - considered

The estate argued that for these purposes, the consideration received by the foundation for such shares should be considered to be the subsequent cash repayments of $17.7 million rather than the promissory note (which clearly was also a non-qualifying security), so that the estate’s previous donation was deemed by s. 118.1(13)(c) to be of $17.7 million rather than nil. ...

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). ...

Agence du revenu du Québec, 2021 QCCQ 12137-- summary under Subsection 18(3.1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 18- Subsection 18(3.1) all the expenses incurred in relation to a rental home under construction from the building permit to being livable were to be capitalized The taxpayer and another individual acquired a lot for $24,500 in May 2004, and incurred various expenses during the period of construction (considered by Laurin JCQ to extend from the time of obtaining a building permit on April 4, 2004, to December 31, 2005, leased the property for one year commencing in October 2007, and the sold the property on February 1, 2011 for a price of $275,000. ...

However, he went on to indicate that the MacDonald decision had the unfortunate effect of giving CRA a non-statutory discretion to determine when pipeline transactions occurred too rapidly to be acceptable to it, and that the findings in MacDonald also appeared to ignore the more precise wording of s. 84(2), as contrasted to the earlier versions considered in Merritt and Smythe. ...

. … It is unclear from the Decision what, if any, factors have been considered [by the decision maker] … in this case. ...

Mingle jointly signed various documents, purportedly in his capacity of co-trustee, to transfer what was considered to be his daughter’s her share of the estate, in the form of a $240,000 mortgage against an estate property. ...

Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458 that a new argument cannot be considered at the appellate level “unless all the relevant evidence is in the record,” and in then finding that the taxpayers’ new argument should not be entertained, stated (at para. 25) that “if the new issue had been raised in the Tax Court it is quite possible that further light ‘could have been thrown upon it’.” ...

Before so concluding, the Court stated (at para. 38): Enterprise’s practices are consistent with CRA policy in its GST/HST Policy Statement P-131R that: “Generally, a person will be considered to have collected an amount as or on account of tax where the person issues an invoice for the supply to the customer indicating the amount of GST/HST payable and subsequently collects the amount.” ...

Monaghan JA found that the Tax Court had made no reversible error and rejected, among other Carvest submissions, that “because the Tax Court characterized the property to be valued as condominium units, rather than leased apartments, it considered itself bound to use the direct comparison method and the individual condominium resale market,” noting that “the Tax Court understood the units were rented but also qualified as “residential condominium units” for purposes of the Excise Tax Act” (para. 26) and stated further (at para. 32) that she was “ satisfied that the Tax Court chose the direct comparison valuation method because it decided it was the appropriate method in this case for the reasons it explained….” ...

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. ...