Search - considered

Decision of the Tax Court of Canada [21]            In allowing the appeal, the Tax Court Judge determined that the transfer was within the limits prescribed by subsection 8517(1) of the Regulations for the purpose of the rules regarding transfers from registered pension plans to RRSPs set out in paragraph 147.3(4)(c) of the Act. [22]            The Tax Court Judge held that subparagraph 8503(2)(a)(ii) of the Regulations clearly contemplates that the indexation provided for in section 9.2 of the Plan forms part of the LRBs, and that subparagraph 8503(2)(a)(iii) of the Regulations allows for indexation benefits to be considered LRBs even in the absence of periodicity and equality of payments (reasons for judgment, at paragraph 18). [23]            This finding led to the Tax Court Judge’s acceptance of the actuarial evidence that the amount of LRBs commuted as a result of the transfer to the RRSP of the indexation benefits was $19,565. ... In support of this position, the appellant relies on paragraph 147.4(1)(g) of the Act: if the benefits were not received from the Plan and are not deemed to have been so received, then payments from the Plan cannot be considered to have commenced for purposes of the transfer rules in subsection 147.3(4) of the Act (appellant’s memorandum of fact and law, at paragraph 41). [26]            Under paragraph 8517(4)(b), the value of commuted LRBs is determined by reference to an individual’s “normalized pension.” ...

On the other hand, the Minister considered the appellant to carry on the land development business, a business different from that carried on by Newport. ...   [54]          I cannot agree with respondent counsel's submission that real estate business cannot be considered a generic business. ...

Such a construction would render the legislation completely nugatory and it is not to be considered that the legislature had in mind any such result. ... Whether or not this is to do indirectly what may not be done directly need not be considered. ...

Subsection 118.4(1) reads: For the purposes of subsection 6(16), sections 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection, (a) an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or can reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months; (b) an individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living; (c) a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means (i) perceiving, thinking and remembering, (ii) feeding and dressing oneself, (iii) speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual, (iv) hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with the individual, (v) eliminating (bowel or bladder functions), or (vi) walking; and (d) for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living. ... (e) Finally there must be considered- and this is the most difficult principle to formulate — the criteria to be employed in forming the judgement whether the mental impairment is of such severity that the person is entitled to the credit, i.e. that that person’s ability to perceive, think and remember is markedly restricted within the meaning of the Act. ...

He seeks support in section 248(26) which reads: 248(26) For greater certainty, where at any time a person or partnership (in this subsection referred to as the "debtor") becomes liable to repay money borrowed by the debtor or becomes liable to pay an amount (other than interest) (a)         as consideration for any property acquired by the debtor or services rendered to the debtor, or (b)         that is deductible in computing the debtor's income, for the purposes of applying the provisions of this Act relating to the treatment of the debtor in respect of the liability, the liability shall be considered to be an obligation, issued at that time by the debtor, that has a principal amount at that time equal to the amount of the liability at that time. [14]     This provision does not go as far as the Respondent suggests; it only indicates what the principal amount is at the time of issuance. ... The headnote to the case reads in part:... when computing the gain or loss realized on the disposition of property such as that of the taxpayer, money must be the measure, and this is so at every stage or step that needs to be considered under the Act in establishing such a gain or loss. ...

It is also my considered opinion that in exchange for this inducement, IKEA was willing to enter into two percentage rent provisions which, in the absence of such an inducement, they might have been reluctant to provide. ... A payment received by a tenant from a landlord as an inducement to enter into a lease will be considered in the hands of the tenant as (a) a non-taxable capital receipt where the payment is a reimbursement of part or all of the tenant's capital cost of leasehold improvements within the meaning of Regulation 1102(4); (b) a reduction of those expenses where the payment is a reimbursement of other expenses incurred by the tenant; (c) income where the negotiation of leases is a regular part of the tenant's business operations (e.g. a chain store); (d) a reduction of what would otherwise be the rental expense of the tenant where the payment is a rebate of rent for a period of the lease; (e) a non-taxable capital receipt in other cases. ...

He considered that, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the shares had been issued within a reasonable time. ... The first question to be considered is the correctness of the judge’s decision that the two preference shares had not been validly issued in 1985. ...

  [15]         The Respondent replies to the Appellant’s position with respect to the Billing Credits as follows:   a)       The Billing Credit arrangement is not a coupon that invokes s.181 of the ETA as:   i)       it was a rebate on the price of the phone not a coupon presented to TELUS for its services;   ii)                 it does not meet the definition of coupon;   iii)               even if the Billing Credit is considered a coupon, it was not based on "a fixed dollar amount", nor was it in a form that could be "accepted" by TELUS.   ...   [34]         This does not stand for the proposition that a reduction under s.181(3) of the ETA can be considered a fixed amount at the time the credit is granted on the invoice. ...

As a result, Arpeg was considered to have realized a capital gain of almost $2,000,000 and recapture of about $500,000 in respect of the sale. [6]      Arpeg does not dispute the Minister's finding that 1200 Homer Street was a rental property and that it did not qualify for the replacement property election. ... If this self-interested testimony were to be accepted without corroboration, I would require significantly more detailed testimony than was provided. [34]     Further, Arpeg did not introduce any board resolutions or minutes of directors' meetings that would suggest that the board ever considered a general signing authority policy. ...

The affixing of materials and the work of binding is considered as one for contractual purposes. ... However, even if a requirement that there be evidence that a notice of appeal has been filed might be considered unnecessarily particular (which I do not concede), and even if a serious issue might be derived from a reading of the reasons appealed from, irreparable harm certainly requires cogent evidence. ...