Search - considered

Results 351 - 360 of 655 for considered

Wachal – Tax Court of Canada finds that non-granular pleading of the Minister failed to shift the onus to the taxpayer

Russell J considered this pleading to be deficient, and found that, given that there was not much of a burden on the taxpayer regarding his “eligible individual” status, somewhat fluffy and poorly substantiated testimony of the taxpayer was sufficient to establish that the taxpayer so qualified for various periods in issue (other than those as to which the taxpayer had effectively conceded.) ...

Pike – Federal Court of Australia, Full Court finds that an individual had his centre of vital interest where he was employed, rather than where he had his greater personal ties

Turning to the “personal and economic relations” test, the primary judge considered Mr Pike’s personal relations to be closer to Australia than Thailand (where he nonetheless had a range of personal relations), but found: In contrast and overwhelmingly, Mr Pike’s economic relations were closer to Thailand. ...

Filion – Court of Quebec finds that an office holder received no taxable benefit from improper expense charges which were docked from his compensation early the next year

Tremblay JCQ found that there was no taxable benefit at all to the taxpayer in 1998 in light of the more-than-offsetting seizure that occurred in January1999, stating: The correspondence between the misappropriation of funds and the appropriation of the transitional allowance by the Office of the National Assembly prevents the plaintiff's economic situation being considered to have been truly altered in 1998 to his benefit as a result of his misappropriation. ...

CRA seems to indicate that joint tenants holding a share are one shareholder, not two

After noting that under a joint tenancy, “the joint tenants have concurrent ownership and possession of the same property,” CRA stated: [W]here two or more joint owners of a share of a corporation are considered one shareholder under relevant corporate law or are entitled to jointly receive any dividend paid on the share by the corporation, the joint owners of the share will generally be counted as one shareholder for purposes of paragraph 130.1(6)(d) …. ...

CRA indicates that the s. 116 certificate limit and the purchase price can coincide even where the vendor partnership has resident partners

However, CRA indicated that it considered that s. 116 can be interpreted such that, in determining the amount of the s. 116(5) liability, the purchase price is only the portion that is attributable to the interest sold by the non-residents, such that the certificate limit and the purchase price would line up, and there would be no resulting s. 116(5) liability. ...

Yorkwest Plumbing – Tax Court of Canada finds that difficulties in allocating costs between Years 1 and 2 could not be solved by deducting them in Year 3

Rather than attempting to allocate this cost to the sales of such goods made in its 2010 and 2011 years (which it considered to have been impracticable to do on an accurate basis), it simply deducted the full cost in its 2012 year. ...

CRA denies a deduction for the employer’s source deduction payment for s. 7 RSU benefits where that payment is funded by reducing the RSU shares issued

In finding that s. 7(3)(b) prohibited EmployerCo from claiming a deduction for this payment in computing its income, CRA stated: [A] portion of the rights of the employee under the RSU Plan is considered to have been disposed of by the employee in exchange for EmployerCo paying the required income tax withholdings arising from the issuance of shares of ParentCo under the RSU Plan. ...

CRA rules that the negative repo spread on a reverse repo was not interest

CRA ruled that “[t]he negative repo spread … will not be considered to be interest or an amount paid or credited as, on account or in lieu of, or in satisfaction of interest for the purposes of paragraph 212(1)(b).” ...

CRA states that investing carried on with the proceeds of sale of a business in which the spousal shareholders had been engaged full time generally would generate TOSI on resulting dividends

CRA noted that the corporation’s investment activities might be a new business that is a related business, but stated that, in such case: [T]he excluded business exception would not apply to husband and/or wife if such individual is not considered to be actively engaged in that investment business on a regular, continuous and substantial basis either during the particular taxation year or in any five prior taxation years. ...

CRA applies its policy that a s. 104(19) designation is effective on December 31 to Pt. IV tax and terminal return inclusions

IV tax exemption did not apply to the dividend received by B Co since the s. 104(19) designation is considered to be effective only at the end of the trust’s taxation year – at which time they were no longer connected. ...

You are here