Search - considered

[2] and since only $8,333.33 were at risk considered that the dangers on the downside were minimal. ...

This could be considered as a commencement of proof in writing. 4.3.2 In studying the evidence concerning the decision to reimburse the $35,000 of salary for 1974 (para 3.07), Orlando’s reasons in making that decision (para 3.09), the testimony of Mr Mallette (para 3.14), that Orlando had not cashed the bonus, but had applied it against the debt of $35,000, and the payment of the balance in October 1975 to the company, the Board must conclude that the preponderance of the evidence is to the effect that the bonus has not been cancelled by the company, that in fact both the appellant and Orlando had received it. ...

Marie-Claude Tremblay explained that she had thus considered it appropriate to call the accountant to inform him of Pierre Girard's visit. ...

In 1977 the appellant saw what he considered to be a very promising mare for breeding purposes, "Jemarjo Princess” ("J.P. ...

None of these, in my opinion, can, by any definition that I’m aware of of the word “structure” be considered to be a structure. ...

The concepts of “property” and “transfer” were carefully considered in the leading decision of President Thorson of the Exchequer Court of Canada involving the Income War Tax Act in the case of Fasken v. ...

The Appellant notes that the CRA has held the Appellant’s claim for the $9,902,767 of input tax credits in abeyance pending the outcome in these appeals. [15] The Respondent argues that the amount at issue, after taking into the 50% rebate for public service bodies, was $7,256,080 comprised of:- $2,629,689 for the Appellant’s GST reporting periods ending between January 1, 2006 and March 31, 2010;- $9,252,782 for the Appellant’s GST reporting periods ending between April 1, 2010 and January 31, 2012; minus- The 50% rebate for public service bodies. [16] The Respondent has assumed that the public service body rebate was $4,626,391 ($2,629,689 plus $9,252,782- $7,256,080). [17] I agree with the Appellant that the $9,902,767 in respect of the reporting periods of the Appellant ending between February 1, 2012 and March 31, 2023 should also be considered since the Appellant’s entitlement to the related input tax credits is dependent on the outcome of this appeal. [7] [18] I have not been able to reconcile the Appellant’s and the Respondent’s numbers with respect to the amount at issue. ...

Two of the four Judges who considered the questions which were raised in it thought that the income then in question was not assessable, and therefore that "the appeal should be allowed” on that ground; another of them thought that the income was assessable, but that it hand not been assessed in the proper municipality, and that, on that ground, the appeal should be allowed; and the fourth Judge merely ‘‘agreed in the result:” so manifestly that case is not an authority for the contention in this case on either side, and it is our duty on consider the questions asked in this stated case, and to give effect to our own conclusions regarding them. ...

These considerations suggest, perhaps, that proceedings under the Income War Tax Act for the recovery of penalties for such defaults as are here in question, if considered from the point of view of that Act alone, lie in very debatable ground; on "‘the boundary line which divides civil from criminal matters” to use the phrase of Lindley L.J., in Attorney General v. ...

For proper interpretation of the will, the whole of it must be considered and looked at, before passing upon any segregated clause. ...