Search - considered

There is no reason why any income earned by it should not be considered as prima facie income from a business so long as it is recognized that the presumption is a rebuttable one. ... In arriving at this conclusion the Court has considered the decision rendered in The Queen v. ... The Court has also considered the decision rendered in Massey-Ferguson Ltd. v. ...

Therefore, the amount of $550,000 identified by your client can be considered the target amount, but should not be considered the exact amount that your client will receive. ... Items to which our counter-offer does not respond, if any, are against the law and should not be considered. [17] On March 13, 2019, counsel for the respondent emailed a letter providing a detailed explanation of the respondent's revised proposal, which included the following: [translation] Our clients' joint proposal, dated February 27, 2019, suggest adjustments to the assessments in dispute that would result in an estimated $549,186.63 prepayment....... ... These last two requests from your clients run counter to applicable laws and public order and should therefore not be considered as part of the essential component of your February 21, 2019, offer. ...

For the purposes of this section and section 53, where a taxpayer, other than a broker or dealer in securities, is a member of a partnership and an amount is designated by a corporation under subsection 194(4) in respect of a share, debt obligation or right acquired by the partnership in a taxation year of the partnership where the partnership is the first person, other than a broker or dealer in securities, to be a registered holder of the share or debt obligation or to have acquired the right, as the case may be, such portion of that amount as may reasonably be considered to be the taxpayer’s share thereof shall be deemed to be an amount designated on the last day of that year by the corporation under subsection 194(4) in respect of a share, debt obligation or right, as the case may be, acquired by the taxpayer on that day where the taxpayer is the first person, other than a broker or dealer in securities, to be a registered holder of the share or debt obligation or to have acquired the right, as the case may be. ... First, BSCT is considered to have acquired the SRTC instrument on the last day of the partnership’s taxation year, being December 30, 1986 and second, it is deemed to be the first holder of the SRTC instrument. ... This issue was neither canvassed or considered by the Federal Court of Appeal. 10 Agreed Statement of Facts, paragraphs 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12. 11 Exhibit A-l, paragraph 8. 12 Exhibit A-1, paragraph 9. 13 Exhibit A-l, paragraph 13. 14 Exhibit A-2, Tabs 6 and 8. ...

This is her stated intention and such must, of course, be considered by the Court. ... HMQ, 2018 TCC 258, Justice Bocock of this Court set out a list of indicia to be considered in determining occupancy. ... I do not know if any of these options were affordable, could practically have been carried out or if they were even considered. ...

Since the income earned after 1971 that was attributable to the 466 redeemed shares amounted to $364,942, one of the results of the redemption was to effect a significant reduction in the portion of the capital gain that Gestion Dufresne would have realized on a disposition of the 466 shares at fair market value immediately before the redemption and that could reasonably be considered to be attributable to anything other than income earned after 1971. ... For example, in paragraph 55(5)(e) of the Act, Par- liament did not merely provide that two sisters are deemed not to be related to each other; it also considered it necessary to add that they are deemed to be dealing with each other at arm’s length. ... Dufresne would be considered brothers-in-law and would thus be deemed to be brothers. ...

Ltd of 100 common shares it held in the appellant to the Trust on January 1 st, 2005. d) the Respondent further adds, in paragraph 7.1(f), that none of the transactions may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit. ... The AGC submits that none of the following avoidance transactions may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit, and are consequently avoidance transactions within the meaning of subsections 245(2) and 245(3) of the Act. ... The Respondent acknowledges that the potential application of the GAAR had been considered by various officers of the CRA during the audit of the Appellant but that it was ultimately not a basis on which the reassessments had been issued. [38] The fact that the Respondent has chosen to add now the proposed amendments to its pleading does not constitute a prejudice to the Appellant. ...

The prevailing rate of inflation, the operating expenses of Gerbro and the annual expenses of Marjorie Bronfman were considered in order to arrive at this target rate of return. ... In light of the words “it may reasonably be concluded” preceding the description of the Motive Test in section 94.1, what is to be considered is whether it is objectively reasonable to conclude that such a benefit was contemplated. ... Whether it may reasonably be considered that Gerbro in fact obtained the contemplated benefit is a factor to be taken into account under paragraph 94.1(1)(d), but is not the only factor. ...

Gauthier objected to a large part of these documents, which he considered not to be relevant to the year in question. ... The taxpayer accordingly does not have the burden of destroying facts which were not considered at the time of the assessment. ... Cudjoe noted that the shares of a minority shareholder are normally considered to have less value. ...

The only issue to be considered and determined in this case is whether the effects of the impairments to her mental functions are such that her ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted. ... APPENDIX   Credit for mental or physical impairment 118.3  (1) Where (a) an individual has one or more severe and prolonged impairments in physical or mental functions, […] (a.2) in the case of an impairment in physical or mental functions the effects of which are such that the individual’s ability to perform a single basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted or … a medical practitioner has certified in prescribed form that the impairment is a severe and prolonged impairment in physical or mental functions the effects of which are such that the individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted … where the medical practitioner is a medical doctor or, in the case of […] (vi) an impairment with respect to an individual’s ability in mental functions necessary for everyday life, a psychologist,                                                […] (b) the individual has filed for a taxation year with the Minister the certificate described in paragraph (a.2) […] […] there may be deducted in computing the individual’s tax payable under this Part for the year the amount determined by the formula […] 118.4  (1) For the purposes of subsection 6(16), sections 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection, (a) an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or can reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months; (b) an individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living; (b.1) an individual is considered to have the equivalent of a marked restriction in a basic activity of daily living only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual’s ability to perform more than one basic activity of daily living (including for this purpose, the ability to see) is significantly restricted, and the cumulative effect of those restrictions is tantamount to the individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living being markedly restricted; (c) a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means (i) mental functions necessary for everyday life, (ii) feeding oneself or dressing oneself, (iii) speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual, (iv) hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with the individual, (v) eliminating (bowel or bladder functions), or (vi) walking; (c.1) mental functions necessary for everyday life include (i) memory, (ii) problem solving, goal-setting and judgement (taken together), and (iii) adaptive functioning; (d) for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living; and (e) feeding oneself does not include (i) any of the activities of identifying, finding, shopping for or otherwise procuring food, or (ii) the activity of preparing food to the extent that the time associated with the activity would not have been necessary in the absence of a dietary restriction or regime; and (f) dressing oneself does not include any of the activities of identifying, finding, shopping for or otherwise procuring clothing.                                ...

He estimated that he would be required at the project sites outside of what are normally considered "business hours" about 50% of the time. [9]      Describing the Jeep Cherokee as a vehicle that is "exclusively a business tool", the Appellant stated that "on occasion" he takes the Jeep Cherokee home from the office at the end of the day's work. ... Each year, in preparing tax returns for Keefe Bros. and the Appellant, he considered the use the Appellant made of the vehicle for anything other than business purposes. ... While noting that the Court described the 90% rule as "arbitrary", counsel argued this decision was supportive of the Minister's position in that, at paragraphs [18] and [19], the learned judge specifically considered D. ...