Search - considered

In drawing the line between "ordinary" negligence or neglect and "gross" negligence a number of factors have to be considered. ... The case also considered whether that Court could hear and decide a constitutional issue when it had not been raised in the courts below by complying with the usual requirements of notice to the interested parties. ... No. 955, at paragraphs 41-43). [37]         I had the benefit of reading recent decisions by the Honourable Rommel Masse, Deputy Judge, in the cases of Chartrand v Canada, 2015 TCC 298, [2015] TCJ No. 231 (QL) and Spurvey v Canada, 2015 TCC 300, [2015] TCJ No. 232 (QL), wherein he conducted a thorough review of the relevant jurisprudence and the various factors to be considered when deciding whether the penalty imposed pursuant to the relevant subsection is justified. ...

Although I may not specifically refer to some of these authorities in my reasons for judgment, I can indicate that I have read and considered all of them in arriving at my decision. [20]         I begin by observing that our system of taxation is both self-reporting and self-assessing. ... He stated: 43. . . the law will impute knowledge to a taxpayer who, in circumstances that dictate or strongly suggest that an inquiry should be made with respect to his or her tax situation, refuses or fails to commence such an inquiry without proper justification. [31]         It has been held that in drawing the line between “ordinary” negligence or neglect and “gross” negligence, a number of factors have to be considered: (a)     the magnitude of the omission in relation to the income declared, (b)     the opportunity the taxpayer had to detect the error, (c)      the taxpayer’s education and apparent intelligence, (d)     genuine effort to comply. ... There may be other factors that need to be considered depending on the circumstances of any particular case. [34]         Therefore, in my view, liability for the gross negligence penalties provided for by subsection 163(2) of the Act can be found when the individual taxpayer has actual knowledge of the false statement contained in his return, is wilfully blind as to the existence of the false statement or has demonstrated recklessness or was otherwise grossly negligent in the making of, participating in, assenting to or acquiescing in the making of, the false statement. [35]         In the case at bar, I am satisfied that the Appellant did not knowingly make a false statement. ...

First, as stated in subsection 163(3) of the Act, the burden of establishing the facts justifying the assessment of the penalty is on the Minister. [11]         It is also recognized that each case must be considered on its own merits and that the facts must be given careful consideration by the Court to determine whether the Minister was able to meet his burden of proof. [12]         During oral argument, counsel for the Minister did not argue that the two taxpayers knowingly made a false statement or omission in their returns. ... Roy, not only as his lawyer, but also as a lawyer for his corporations, for about thirty years and considered him a friend and honest man, Mr. ... Côté considered him his friend, as Mr. Roy attended his mother’s funeral, and there was no reason to believe he was dishonest. ...

  [51]            As mentioned, the Court considered the various arguments raised by Mr.  ...   [85]            In order to answer that question, the Court considered all of the evidence in order to determine whose version appears to be the most plausible ...   [98]            Once again, the Court carefully considered the arguments raised by Mr.  ...

E-15 (the "Act"), from the Minister of National Revenue's Notice of Decision dated December 11, 1997 which denied the Plaintiff's application for a Federal Sales Tax (FST) inventory rebate pertaining to FST-paid replacement parts (the "Replacement Parts"). [2]                 The reasons for the Minister's decision are the following: The Minister of National Revenue has carefully considered the information and reasons set forth in your Notice of Objection. ... A further inequity exists in that warranty parts to be supplied by a dealer to a customer, under a manufacturer's warranty are eligible for the rebate, even though they would normally be considered to be goods held for use in service contracts. ... Nowsco Well Service Ltd., 90 D.T.C. 6312 (F.C.A.). 23         Halliburton and Nowsco considered the form of contract entered into between the taxpayer and customer to be irrelevant. ...

In the case of a band division, the request should indicate the reasons for the band division and the alternatives considered. ... The BCR's should indicate the reasons for the request, the alternatives considered and that the band councils have developed a plan for asset administration following amalgamation. ... Certainly, the Minister considered that the policy would be followed in dealing with applications for new bands as the then Minister stated in part in a letter to Roger Sark dated October 8, 1999: The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND) can consider recognizing a group as a "Band" under the Indian Act only if the group meets the requirements of the New Bands/Band Amalgamations Policy. ...

While various provisions of the Income Tax Act govern different aspects of the claims, counsel agreed at the hearing that this appeal turns essentially on the three issues that are considered below in section C of these reasons.      ... [83]      It would seem that the intention of all the participants in the Anwin Research Partnership, Sunshine, Perth and Anaquan, should be considered: Spire Freezers Limited v. ... McLellan"s apparent belief in the viability of his research project in the face of the hard evidence of Anaquan"s financial plight, nor Sunshine"s uninformed and speculative hope that there might be a profit from Anaquan"s research, something that it regarded as little more than a windfall or "bonus", is sufficient, whether considered individually or together, and put in the context of all the other evidence, to bring Anwin within the statutory definition of a partnership. [114]      On the facts as they were, and were known to be, on February 25, 1986 I am not satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the parties agreed to carry on a business through the Anwin Research Partnership "with a view of profit", even as an ancillary objective. [115]      Since the determination of the true intention of the parties depends on the evidence before the Court in the particular case, other cases can provide only limited assistance. ...

In fact, he acknowledged that he had considered the disposition of the shares prior to 1985. 57 [55]      The evidence concerning the plaintiffs' expectations becomes even more speculative and less relevant with the plaintiff Ludco Enterprises Ltd. prepared to make a fully leveraged investment of $1.4M in December 1980, when interest rates were double those of 1977. ... The following criteria should be considered: the profit and loss experience in past years, the taxpayer's training, the taxpayer's intended course of action, the capability of the venture as capitalized to show a profit after charging capital cost allowance. ... This, in my view, is not inconsistent with his evidence that he considered disposing of the plaintiffs' shares prior to 1985.      58      June 6, 1997, p. 53, l. 11 to p. 54, l. 2.      59      Supra, note 55.      60      Supra, note 16.      61      June 4, 1997, p. 211, l. 24 to p. 212, l. 8.      62      June 4, 1997, p. 214, ll. 7-10; p. 217, ll. 19-23; and p. 218, ll. 4-8.      63      June 4, 1997, p. 216, ll. 3-8. ...

The buy-out by the Canadian producer is irrelevant for us; however, the film has lost its official coproduction status and can no longer be considered a European work for French channels, but a foreign work... ” (see the affidavit of the Studios representative, Exhibit P-26) ... Therefore, for France, such a work cannot be considered European when it is broadcast on a French channel” (see the affidavit of the Studios representative, Exhibit P-31) ...   [32]            He added the following: [translation]   3)  “From the moment the Canadian producer owns an entire film, we are no longer in the presence of a coproduction within the meaning of the treaty; as a result, the work can no longer be considered a work between Canada and France, and, therefore, a European work, in France ...

Both litigants have considered the transfer as valid and binding on the parties. It appears from the above quotations that, in order to be valid and binding, the transfer made in 1925 must necessarily be related and linked to the ante-nuptial contract of March, 1913, whereby was created the obligation and indebtedness of the future husband to his future wife, and the deed of conveyance of the 28th March, 1925, which evidences the payments, satisfaction and discharge of this pre-nuptial obligation cannot be [Page 226] considered apart from the other, as they must, to be valid and legal under the law of Quebec, form but one complete non-severable transaction. ... The expression “right accrued” or “right acquired” in paragraph (c) of subsection 2 of section 38 of the English Interpretation Act has been considered in several cases, some of which are reviewed in Hosie v. ...