Search - considered

The right to sue is not involved here, nor may the appellant’s claim to the payment of income tax be determined by a decision as to whether the respondent is ‘‘carrying on business” in the Province within the meaning of the Companies Act provisions considered in the John Deere Plow case. ...

The following extract from Defendant’s Factum includes the points of difference upon which it relies (p. 4-5): " ‘It will be noted that the facts in the Lambe case were identical with the facts in the case presently under discussion with the notable exception that the statute which was considered in the Lambe case was so worded that it was abundantly clear that the taxes ‘.. are hereby imposed upon... such corporations’ and that the capital was used only as a ‘yard stick’ or means of reference by which the amount of the tax payable by a company was ascertained. ...

It is not perhaps entirely clear from the President’s judgment whether he would regard a company incorporated under the law of a Canadian province as a “Canadian debtor” in respect of its dividends or whether he would apply the term only to companies registered under Dominion law, but the material point is that he considered the test to decide who was a ‘‘Canadian debtor’’ in the case of an individual depended on the individual ‘s nationality and not on his place of residence, and therefore logically held that in the case of an incorporated company the test was the place of the incorporation of the company and not its place of ‘‘residence’’ as understood in the law relating to companies, i.e. the place where the company had its “head and seat”. ...

The Minister’s decision reads: “The Honourable the Minister of National Revenue having duly considered the facts as set forth in the Notice of Appeal and matters thereto relating hereby affirms the said Assessment on the ground that the taxpayer has been correctly assessed and that the deductions claimed are not permissible under the provisions of the Act. ...

‘Income’ as hereinbefore defined shall for the purposes of this Act be subject to the following exemptions and deductions: (a) The Minister in determining the income derived from mining and from oil and gas wells and timber limits may make such an allowance for the exhaustion of the mines, wells and timber limits as he may deem just and fair, and in the case of leases of mines, oil and gas wells and timber limits the lessor and lessee shall each be entitled to deduct a part of the allowance for exhaustion as they agree and in case the lessor and lessee do not agree the Minister shall have full power to appor- tion the deduction between them and his determination shall be conclusive; ‘ ’ The Minister affirmed his disallowance as follows: "‘The Honourable the Minister of National Revenue having duly considered the facts as set forth in the Notice of Appeal, and matters thereto relating, hereby affirmes the said Assessment on the ground that the taxpayer is not entitled to an allowance under the provisions of Subsection (a) of Section 5 of the Income War Tax Act for the exhaustion of timber limits owned by the Crown in right of the Province of Alberta on which the taxpayer has been licensed to cut timber. ...

A different view of the nature of the Minister’s power under sec. 47, namely, that it is not subject to the specific provisions of the Act and that the amount of his determination is not subject to review by the Court would lead to such extraordinary results, without any need or justification for them, that they ought not to be considered as having been within the intention of Parliament. ...

He has considered how he should hold the hearing and has reached a conclusion based on the facts so far advanced. ...

The word “employed” has been considered in a number of cases. In Harris v. ...

In support, the Applicant explained that the tax returns were filed late due to the extenuating personal circumstances of its accountant. [9] The Applicant’s request was put on hold in February 2021 pending the completion of an internal review concerning the CRA’s administration of subsection 220(3) of the ITA. [10] In July 2022, the CRA advised the Applicant that in reviewing its request to extend the time for filing its 2012-2014 tax returns, the following criteria would be considered: (i) the existence of extraordinary circumstances that prevented the taxpayer from filing the income tax returns on time; and (ii) a demonstration that the taxpayer was not negligent and careless in failing to file the tax return on time and otherwise conducting its affairs under the ITA. ...

The Court considered that it was too late after the CRA audit for the payments to be recognized as shareholder loan repayments or payments for services rendered. ...