Search - considered

In addition counsel noted that a clear distinction existed between this case and Totem (supra) since the question of using the management bonus as a tax reduction mechanism had not been considered at all. ...

From the evidence, I can find nothing in the foregoing which would allow me to conclude that the appellant must be considered a mere “employee”, whereas a senior partner must be treated as a person in business. ...

The Board is persuaded that the testimony and evidence support the contention of counsel for the appellant that the loss of the amount paid to Columbia by the appellant ($25,000) was on income account, and should be considered a business loss. ...

The respondent submitted the following cases, all of which I have considered: Philias C Castonguay v MNR, [1970] Tax ABC 35; 70 DTC 1056; C A Burns Limited v MNR, [1981] CTC 2001; 81 DTC 14; Hubert Plante and Reynald Plante v MNR, [1981] CTC 2052; 81 DTC 74; Earle C Argue v MNR, [1981] CTC 2221; 81 DTC 204; Les Immeubles Dramis Inc v MNR, [1981] CTC 2568; 81 DTC 512; Raymond G Schaeffer v MNR, [1981] CTC 2891; 81 DTC 807; James R Leslie v MNR, [1982] CTC 2233; 82 DTC 1216. ...

There were two points at issue in the appeal — one regarding the area of land which should be properly considered as the appellant’s “principal residence” since a portion of the total acreage upon which his house was built was sold by the appellant in the year 1978. ...

This provision reads as follows: 8. (1) In computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from an office or employment, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as are wholly applicable to that source or such part of the following amounts as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto: (h) where the taxpayer, in the year, (i) was ordinarily required to carry on the duties of his employment away from his employer’s place of business or in different places, (ii) under the contract of employment was required to pay the travelling expenses incurred by him in the performance of the duties of his office or employment, and (iii) was not in receipt of an allowance for travelling expenses that was, by virtue of subparagraph 6(1)(b)(v), (vi) or (vii), not included in computing his income and did not claim any deduction for the year under paragraph (e), (f) or (g), amounts expended by him in the year for travelling in the course of his employment; 4.03.2 Concerning the losses of $1,447 claimed for the Rolex chronometer (owned by his wife, paras 3.05(g) and 3.13), and for the stove (para 3.12), it was obvious that they were for personal use, and therefore the capital loss must be considered as nil by virtue of subparagraph 40(2)(g)(iii). ...

The Facts A Admission by the Appellant 3.01 At the beginning of the trial, counsel for the appellant stated that he was abandoning part of the appeal: specifically the sum of $3,272.83 which is considered as personal expenses for the year 1976. ...

The auditors considered that to compute the Valuation Day value of Voting Trust Certificates, each dealer should use $40.50 as the Valuation Day value of each DHL share represented by a Certificate. ...

It appears that he considered that because, in his view, the publication was “aimed primarily at ad- vertising properties listed in the Multiple Listing Service,... and promoting the services and goodwill of members of the Board...” it could not be a “newspaper”. ...

Counsel for the respondent noted that the promissory note should not be considered an investment — it bore the same interest rate as the relevant mortgage, no profit could be earned, and therefore it could not be said that it was to gain or produce income. ...