Search - considered

Croteau testified that he had considered the fact that the extra hours worked by the interveners would ultimately be paid to them in the form of a dividend declared by the company or by assigning them a greater percentage of ownership in the business. ... This relationship between the interveners and the appellant, following the death of their father, was clearly different from that which the appellant would have had with an employee with whom it dealt at arm's length. [35]     After examining all these factors, which I consider important and relevant and which emerge from the evidence produced during the trial, I have concluded that, if the Minister had considered them, he would not have reached the decision he reached, having regard for the law and for an objective, reasonable point of view. [36]     For these reasons, I consider that it is possible to move on to the second stage of the appeal process and to determine whether, having regard to all the evidence, the parties to the employment contracts would have entered into substantially similar employment contracts had they been dealing with each other at arm's length, in light of all the circumstances, including those set out at paragraph 5(3)b) of the Act. [37]     It is true that in terms of the remuneration paid, the hourly rate of the interveners was similar to that provided for in the agreement of the C.C.Q., even though the appellant was not bound by the terms of this agreement. ...

Therefore, if the support payments are to be considered payable under the July 4, 1997, order, then the commencement day is July 4, 1997, and if they are to be considered payable under the January 20, 1992, or the March 15, 1996, order, then it must be determined whether one of the situations in subparagraphs (b)(i) to (iv) applies and which is the earliest of the days mentioned in these subparagraphs that is after April 1997. [27]     It is obvious that subparagraphs (b)(i) and (b)(iv) do not apply in this case because a joint election was not filed with the Minister and there was no day specified in the order. ...

This is a company that is several years old; under similar circumstances, the main shareholder would doubtless have considered closing if the company he controlled did not generate sufficient profits to provide him with a decent income. ...   [48]     Considered separately, these facts are not determinative; however, the systematic re‑occurrence of the same scenario seems to justify the conclusion that the working arrangement was seriously affected by the fact that the parties were not dealing with each other at arm’s length. ...

The end of the spring and summer period included harvest and hay time; this was heavy outdoor work, considered to be too hard for a woman. ... Wrights' Canadian Ropes Ltd., contends the respondent, unless the Minister has not had regard to all the circumstances of the employment (as required by subparagraph 3(2)(c)(ii) of the Act), has considered irrelevant factors, or has acted in contravention of some principle of law, the court may not interfere. ...

"   [24]     The tax specialist whose services were retained by the Appellant took all the Appellant's claims for granted and considered that his mandate was to convince the Court that the Appellant's claims were correct ...   [46]     Yet the information was not validated by an audit of the snack bar; the assessment was based on a percentage that was considered normal in these matters. ...

She considered that the Corporation had declared an amount of $487.65 in taxes collected (according to Exhibit I-3, Tab 9) without realizing that the amount of $487.65 entered could be the net taxes (the difference between the taxes collected and the inputs). Thus she assessed the Corporation for the difference between the total taxes collected ($10,819.01) and what she considered the declared taxes collected ($487.65), or $10,331.36 (Exhibit I-5), without granting any input tax credits for that period. [20]     From the $10,819.01 deemed as the total tax collected, she could only justify an amount of $8,587.48 $ (Exhibit I-4) at the hearing. ...

Analysis:           Issue No. 1 [15]     Subsection 15(1) states: 15. (1) Where at any time in a taxation year a benefit is conferred on a shareholder, or on a person in contemplation of the person becoming a shareholder, by a corporation otherwise than by (a)         the reduction of the paid-up capital, the redemption, cancellation or acquisition by the corporation of shares of its capital stock or on the winding-up, discontinuance or reorganization of its business, or otherwise by way of a transaction to which section 88 applies, (b)         the payment of a dividend or a stock dividend, (c)         conferring, on all owners of common shares of the capital stock of the corporation at that time, a right in respect of each common share, that is identical to every other right conferred at that time in respect of each other such share, to acquire additional shares of the capital stock of the corporation, and, for the purpose of this paragraph,             (i)          where (A)        the voting rights attached to a particular class of common shares of the capital stock of a corporation differ from the voting rights attached to another class of common shares of the capital stock of the corporation, and (B)        there are no other differences between the terms and conditions of the classes of shares that could cause the fair market value of a share of the particular class to differ materially from the fair market value of a share of the other class, the shares of the particular class shall be deemed to be property that is identical to the share of the other class, and (ii)         rights are not considered identical if the cost of acquiring the rights differs, or (d)         an action described in paragraph 84(1)(c.1), (c.2) or (c.3), the amount or value thereof shall, except to the extent that it is deemed by section 84 to be a dividend, be included in computing the income of the shareholder for the year. [16]     The Minister wants to use this subsection to include in the Appellant's income for the 1998 taxation year the $39,000.00 received by Brunswick from Eagle on January 26, 1998. ... Although there is no clear evidence of the additional $23,000.00 being paid by Brunswick to the Appellant, it is clearly a debt created by the company to the Appellant for no consideration and therefore subsection 15(1) is engaged and the benefit is considered conferred. [25]     The Minister's assessment of the shareholder benefit under subsection 15(1) is based on the premise that the Appellant set up a scheme whereby an input tax credit based on a false claim filed by Riverside was transferred from Riverside to Brunswick through Eagle and eventually dispersed to the Appellant via payment of shareholder loans. ...

Moldowan suggests that there may be a number of factors to be considered but we are here concerned only with three: time spent, capital committed and profitability. ... In my opinion, it is now well established that it is the cumulative impact of the factors time spent, capital committed and profitability that must be considered, and not any one factor taken disjunctively. [20]          In The Queen v. ...

The Supreme Court of Canada considered the nature of a fin de non recevoir in the case of National Bank of Canada v. ... The Queen [19] Judge Bowman (as he then was) considered the jurisdiction of this Court with respect to crediting an Appellant for source deductions withheld but not remitted by the employer and he stated at paragraph 14:   Even if I had concluded differently it would not have been within the power of this court to declare that in determining the balance owing to the Government of Canada by Mr.  ...

., of which he is the sole shareholder, in order to purchase a Mercedes E300 car;   (d)        in fact, this amount was not withdrawn from Terrassement Portugais inc. and the APPELLANT did not purchase this car for himself;   (e)        to the contrary, this car was purchased in Canada by the APPELLANT acting simply as an agent of the actual purchaser and owner of the car, Fernando Dos Santos José, who lives in Pombal, Portugal;   (f)         various documents establishing this fact were submitted to the assessing officer, who did not accept them and refused to believe the APPELLANT's version, without requiring additional evidence that might have been considered necessary, where relevant;   (g)        the APPELLANT filed with the assessing officer original Portuguese statements and official documents sworn in Portugal, and a translation thereof into French, including the following:   (i)         a February 18, 1999, statement by the owner Fernando Dos Santos José that this car was fully owned by him and was imported for him from Canada by the APPELLANT as an agent;   (ii)        a February 15, 1999, statement by the said Fernando Dos Santos José that the said car was paid for by a bank transfer, of which the number was duly identified, and that he himself was the owner of the car;   (iii)       proof of registration (gray card), issued by the Republic of Portugal, of the said car in the name of the said owner;   (iv)       proof of insurance of the said car by Metropole Seguros in the name of the said Fernando Dos Santos José;   (v)        February 25, 1994, proof of exchange of escudos and proof of purchase of $65,000 in Canadian banknotes by the said Fernando Dos Santos José so that this money could be remitted to the APPELLANT and the said vehicle purchased;   (h)        in fact, for a Portuguese citizen the cost of such a car if purchased in Portugal is nearly double the cost of the car if purchased in Canada, and this was why the transaction was carried out for the actual owner;   (i)         however, in order to benefit [sic] from the customs duty on entry into Portugal, the car must have been used for at least seven months, which explains why the car remained in the APPELLANT's possession for a lengthy period;   (j)         the APPELLANT merely acted as an agent and a broker to be of service to this person;   (k)        the APPELLANT offered to produce other evidence required by the assessing officer and is still prepared to provide this evidence;   (l)         the APPELLANT also intends to produce new documents as evidence in this regard;   (m)       the assessing officer did not contest the legality of the documents that were produced;   NET WORTH   (n)        as well, for the 1993 taxation year, in obtaining a variation of $9,190.40 in net worth, the assessing officer indicated total income of $20,550.40, whereas the total declared income was only $11,360.00;   (o)        in addition, the APPELLANT received Notices of Reassessment for the 1990 and 1991 taxation years; he was assessed as having received $3,770.00 in income from Terrassement Portugais inc. and having deposited that income into his personal bank account for the 1990 taxation year; and he was assessed as having deposited into his personal bank account an amount of $16,000.00, also derived from Terrassement Portugais inc., for the 1990 taxation year;   (p)        therefore, those two amounts totalling $19,770.00 should have been considered the starting point of the net worth for the 1992 taxation year and should have been carried forward to 1993;   (q)        as a result, even if it were admitted that the total income computed using the net worth method is accurately recorded for the 1993, 1994 and 1995 taxation years, which is not the case, even under these circumstances, the variation added for undeclared income would be inaccurate because the APPELLANT's net worth was greater at the beginning of the 1993 fiscal year;   (r)        the amount of $19,770.00 must be taken into account for the 1994 and 1995 taxation years;   [6]     At the beginning of the hearing, counsel for the appellants told the Court that the appellant company was no longer claiming the $1,491 deduction for the 1995 taxation year and that, as a result, $1,595 should be added to the income of the appellant Manuel José for the 1995 taxation year. ...