Search - considered

The wording is important so I will not paraphrase it. [19] Subsection 159(1) of the Income Tax Act deals with liability where one person acts for another, and reads in part as follows: 159. (1) Person acting for another – For the purposes of this Act, where a person is a legal representative of a taxpayer at any time, (a) the legal representative is jointly and severally, or solidarily, liable with the taxpayer (i) to pay each amount payable under this Act by the taxpayer at or before that time and that remains unpaid, to the extent that the legal representative is at that time in possession or control, in the capacity of legal representative, of property that belongs or belonged to, or that is or was held for the benefit of, the taxpayer or of the taxpayer’s estate, and (ii)to perform any obligation or duty imposed under this Act on the taxpayer at or before that time and that remains outstanding, to the extent that the obligation or duty can reasonably be considered to relate to the responsibilities of the legal representative acting in that capacity; and... [20] Subsection 159(2) deals with the requirement to obtain a clearance certificate before distributing property and says: 159. (2) Certificate before distribution – Every legal representative (other than a trustee in bankruptcy) of a taxpayer shall, before distributing to one or more persons any property in the possession or control of the legal representative acting in that capacity, obtain a certificate from the Minister, by applying for one in prescribed form, certifying that all amounts (a) for which the taxpayer is or can reasonably be expected to become liable under this Act at or before the time the distribution is made, and (b) for the payment of which the legal representative is or can reasonably be expected to become liable in that capacity have been paid or that security for the payment thereof has been accepted by the Minister. [21] Subsection 159(3) deals with the possible consequences of distributing property without obtaining a clearance certificate and says: 159. (3) Personal liability – If a legal representative (other than a trustee in bankruptcy) of a taxpayer distributes to one or more persons property in the possession or control of the legal representative, acting in that capacity, without obtaining a certificate under subsection (2) in respect of the amounts referred to in that subsection, (a) the legal representative is personally liable for the payment of those amounts to the extent of the value of the property distributed; (b) the Minister may at any time assess the legal representative in respect of any amount payable because of this subsection; and (c) the provisions of this Division (including, for greater certainty, the provisions in respect of interest payable) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to an assessment made under this subsection as though it had been made under section 152 in respect of taxes payable under this Part. [22] By virtue of paragraph 152(3.1)(b), the normal reassessment period for the estate is three years. ...

It was also used to travel to, attend, and entertain at boat shows in British Columbia and Washington that the Jackmans considered key to their business and at which they rented booths for their marina. ...

To the extent the Minister may envision any such distinction, that point should be left for adjudication in a future matter with the benefit of fulsome argument. [13] Before leaving this issue, I note that the Minister’s submissions focused substantially on what she considered to be a dispute as to whether electronic records qualify as documents that are compellable under s 231.1(1). ...

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. ...

On March 27, 1980, the Board of Directors of the Appellant considered a proposal from P.M. ...

The operative provisions of that indemnity reads as follows: Now Therefore be it Resolved That: (L504/R2742/T2/BT2) test_marked_paragraph_end (2074) 0.833 0489_6265_6377 I In consideration of their providing the Guarantees, the Corporation is hereby authorized to provide the following assurances to the Guarantors: (a) The Corporation shall agree to pay all of the costs of the Guarantors in connection with their entering into the Guarantees; (b) The Corporation shall agree to indemnify and save the Guarantors harmless from any claim, liability or loss arising in respect of the Guarantees, from time to time, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any claims, liabilities or losses arising as a result of the Guarantors having to honour their obligations under the Guarantee; and (c) in the event that any of the Guarantors are required to pay any amount in respect of the Guarantees, then to the extent of such payment, the Corporation acknowledges and agrees that the Guarantors will be entitled to an assignment of the Loan as if the Guarantors had been original parties thereto, and for the purposes of this provision, any amounts owing by the Corporation to the Guarantors, and unpaid, including amounts owing by the Corporation to the Guarantors under paragraph (a) or (b) above, shall be considered payments made by the Guarantors. ...

This subsection illustrates a style of legislative drafting that started with tax reform in 1972 in which the drafter of the Act considered it clever to reduce complex algebraic or mathematical formulae to a single page-long sentence. ...

Those principles should be consistently applied; if a Judge declines to apply them, without a reason for doing so, he may be considered to have acted arbitrarily or capriciously and not judicially. reinforces my view that Garon J. did not intend to deviate from the customary practice in the Tax Court of Canada. ...

He held that the following five factors should be considered in determining whether a collateral attack is permissible: (1) the wording of the statute; (2) the purpose of the legislation; (3) the availability of an appeal; (4) the kind of collateral attack; and (5) the penalty on a conviction for failing to comply with the order. ...

During this period he only considered the timber which was of a butt diameter of 12 inches or more. ...