Search - considered

However, there is no doubt that for this period, the Appellant thought he was receiving his own money back and if either the Appellant or his accountant had, for even one brief second, considered these sums, it would have been shown as a return on capital. ...

The Parties’ Positions Residency [9] At the hearing, the parties presented little authority on the issue of the wording of residency used in 118(6)(b) namely, “residence in Canada at any time in the year”, particularly with respect to the use of the phrase elsewhere in the ITA and authorities which may have considered same. ...

Filing Date 4.2 Except as otherwise provided in these Rules and unless otherwise directed by the Court, the date of filing a document is deemed to be (a) in the case of a document filed with the Registry or sent by mail or by fax, the date shown by the date received stamp placed on the document by the Registry at the time it is received; or (b) in the case of a document filed by electronic filing, the date shown on the acknowledgement of receipt issued by the Court Interpretation [17] While no prior authorities have specifically addressed sections Rule 4.1 or Rule 4.2 above, the use of similar language has been previously considered. [18] The case of Covic v MNR [1] concerned a similar issue where an application was stamped by the registry three days after the deadline. ...

This application included his address at 3 Matthewson Ave. [5] In February 2015, the CRA audited the appellant. [6] On June 14, 2016 the appellant moved out of 3 Matthewson Ave. [7] On February 25, 2020 the appellant received a legal warning letter about a GST/HST debt. [8] On August 4, 2021, the appellant electronically filed with the Minister a Notice of Objection to the Assessment. [9] The Minister considered the Notice of Objection filed on August 4, 2021, as an Application for an extension of time to file a Notice of Objection. [10] On October 15, 2021, the Minister denied the appellant’s application for an extension of time to file a Notice of Objection, because it was filed 2,227 days beyond the expiry of the timeframe for granting such extension pursuant to paragraph 303(7)(a) of the Act. [11] On November 9, 2021, the appellant filed an appeal to this Court with respect to the Assessment. [12] Some time in December 2020 the appellant hired Alexander Shaulov as his representative. ...

(shared-custody parent) [5] Section 6302 of the Income Tax Regulations, C.R.C. c. 945 (the “Regulations”) provides the following factors concerning care and upbringing: For the purposes of paragraph (h) of the definition eligible individual in section 122.6 of the Act, the following factors are to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant: (a) the supervision of the daily activities and needs of the qualified dependant; (b) the maintenance of a secure environment in which the qualified dependant resides; (c) the arrangement of, and transportation to, medical care at regular intervals and as required for the qualified dependant; (d) the arrangement of, participation in, and transportation to, educational, recreational, athletic or similar activities in respect of the qualified dependant; (e) the attendance to the needs of the qualified dependant when the qualified dependant is ill or otherwise in need of the attendance of another person; (f) the attendance to the hygienic needs of the qualified dependant on a regular basis; (g) the provision, generally, of guidance and companionship to the qualified dependant; and (h) the existence of a court order in respect of the qualified dependant that is valid in the jurisdiction in which the qualified dependant resides. ...

The Court added that the treatment given to other productions, while not relevant for the purposes of its decision, also gave an impression of arbitrariness. [8] Lastly, the Federal Court considered that by not addressing certain arguments put forward by the respondents, the Minister’s decision does not satisfy the requirements of reasons and internal rationality that the Supreme Court discusses in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. ...

Moreover, in dealing with the question of such exemption from taxation must it not be considered whether the subject matter involves a national undertaking or merely a private matter and in the latter case it cannot be applied to rates and taxes not in existence at the date of the Act or substituted for what was then in existence, and it is especially so when the intention of Parliament would by necessary intendment deny such exemption. ...

Be all this as it may, this case will be considered and decided upon the Canadian statute. ...

This point is carefully considered in Re Bayack (1929) 64 O.L.R. 14, where it is made quite clear that there is no ” assessment ” in the statuory sense, until the assessor returns his roll. ...

The parties concurred in stating the questions of law arising herein in the form of a special case for the opinion of the Supreme Court of the province; and, on consent of all concerned, the case was heard by the court en banc, which, having considered the points submitted, ordered that judgment be entered for the respondent, without costs. ...