Search - considered

These transactions depended in part on the appellants being considered to have acquired units of an income fund ("FMO") from another income fund ("TOM") (which in turn had purportedly acquired the FMO units from an RRSP in consideration for issuing TOM units to it) at a cost equaling the units’ FMV, followed immediately by a distribution to them of capital gains that had been realized by FMO – with that distribution not reducing the ACB of their units by virtue of s. 53(2)(h)(i.1)(A) and (B)((I). ...

In sum, the "same circumstances" that must be considered of the hypothetical comparator cannot include being or not being the holder of a working holiday visa just as they cannot include being or not being an Australian national. ...

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). ...

., 2021 SCC 49, [2021] 3 S.C.R. 590-- summary under Article 4 Summary Under Tax Topics- Treaties- Income Tax Conventions- Article 4 a company resident under Luxembourg domestic law (its legal seat was there), and that was “liable to be liable to tax,” was resident there for Treaty purposes even though a conduit In considering whether there had been a treaty-shopping abuse of the Canada-Luxembourg Treaty by virtue of the taxpayer, which had its legal seat in Luxembourg, but was a “conduit entity” without a substantial economic connection to Luxembourg, accessing a Treaty exemption for a capital gain on its disposition of a Canadian resource company, Côté J stated (at paras. 53-54-56, 58): [T[he use of the word “means” in this provision indicates that the definition should be “construed as comprehending that which is specifically described or defined” and thus as setting out all requirements that must be met to be considered a resident under the Treaty …. ...

After having indicated (at para. 23) that the reasonableness of the letters turned on a test of whether there may be considered to be “a rational connection … between the information sought and the administration and enforcement of the ITA,” Fothergill J rejected a submission that the request letters sought foreign-based information and that they should have been issued under s. 231.6, stating (at paras. 37, 43): I am satisfied that Dr. ...

Hogan J stated (at para. 49): I fail to see how the doctrine of res judicata can apply when the provision of the law previously considered in an earlier decision no longer applies. ...

Technical uncertainty can be considered to be present where “the claimant may be fairly confident that the goals can be achieved, but it is uncertain which of several alternatives will work” (para. 35). ...

Canada (National Revenue), 2022 FCA 63-- summary under Section 8 Summary Under Tax Topics- Other Legislation/Constitution- Charter (Constitution Act, 1982)- Section 8 public accessibility of certified court record, including the material considered by CRA, did not violate s. 8 The taxpayer sought to challenge, through judicial review, information requests made by CRA (who was reviewing his residency status) to other countries’ tax authorities. ...

. … There is no doubt that the density rights to a property have a value and that this value must be considered in determining the current value of the properties. ...

In finding that the base payments made in its 1999 to 2002 taxation years did not satisfy the requirement under s. 18(1)(a) of having been incurred for the purpose of producing income from the taxpayer’s business, Owen J stated (at para. 40) that an “expenditure of the income that has been determined for a taxation period cannot be incurred as part of the process of earning that income” and that it should be considered in this regard “that the base payment only arises after the conclusion of the producer’s income earning process in respect of potash subject to the base payment tax” (para. 66) given that “[t]o compute the amount of a base payment for a year, a producer must first compute its profits for that year” (para. 64) and that “Liability for a base payment will exist only in respect of potash that has been “sold or otherwise disposed of” by a producer … [i.e.,] potash … [that] is no longer capable of producing income for the producer” (para. 65). ...