Search - considered

  [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. ...

  [95]          Counsel said that the only legal issue raised in the pleadings was that the employees were not considered to be carrying on business outside of Canada as required by subsection 122.3(1) of the Income Tax Act (the “ Act ”) ... If, however, the business is providing services by way of subcontracting to a contractor, which services must necessarily be provided outside Canada, then the business can be considered to be carried on outside Canada. ...

Then finally, if it is possible, and we respectfully submit that it is not on the facts of this case, to find that the business of the taxpayer was not that of lending, but if it can be said that it was some other business, then at the very least the loans were an integral part of that business and to the extent of the evidence before you, is that those loans were bad, they are probably deductible in computing the profit, under the General Business Rules, Sec 9(1) and (2) and Sec 18(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act.... unless the stte of the law today is that in no case can a corporate taxpayer be considered to be in the business of lending or part of its business to be that of lending, where it makes a loan to a company in which it has equity, ie shares, the taxpayer must succeed in this case.... the equity that Highfield had in the various companies to which it lent money, it is repectfully submitted, are supportive of its lending activities, given that the evidence indicates that such shares were received as extra consideration for loans being made and therefore don’t detract from its status as a lender... ... However, as I have already noted, I do not find much in that mathematical argument which should be considered critical to a determination of the issue before the Board. ...

., US$14 per Common Share multiplied by 71.429 Common Shares). [31]            Having determined that the amount paid by the Taxpayer upon the extinguishment of each converted Convertible Debenture was US$1,000, the Judge then considered whether and when that amount was required to be converted to Canadian currency in accordance with subsection 261(2), which requires an amount expressed in a foreign currency that is relevant in computing a taxpayer’s Canadian tax results, within the meaning of subsection 261(1) (“Canadian Tax Results”), to be converted into Canadian currency using the rate effective on the date that the amount arose. [32]            The Judge concluded that the US$1,000 amount “arose” not at the time of the extinguishment of a Convertible Debenture but at the time of its issuance. ... Because the Taxpayer did not make a Functional Currency Election in the taxation years in issue, the application of subsection 261(2) must be considered. ...

Although the word “purpose” does not appear in paragraph 169(1)(c), the Court rejected the notion that ultimate purpose should be looked at when considering whether property was acquired for use in the course of commercial activities. [23] [53]         Whilst the decisions demonstrate the differing regimes and highlight Parliament’s intent as either an immediate or ultimate purpose, these do not assist in ascertaining the purpose in the context of the rebate provision. [54]         The context in which the term “purpose” is used in the legislation must also be considered. ...   [12]        The Tax Court considered whether Brown was making separate supplies of livestock (zero-rated supply) and a livestock purchasing service involving transportation, inoculation and branding (taxable supplies). ...

Not only does Article 18.6 of the Shareholders’ Agreement provide for the severability of illegal portions (Reasons, para. 53), but the framework provided by the ARDFPS already contemplates remedies other than a declaration of nullity for corporations that contravene its provisions (Reasons, para. 65). [25]            The TCC judge then considered the effect of Articles 6 and 7.3 of the Shareholders’ Agreement on the deduction claimed by the appellants. He conducted his analysis without adopting the Minister’s position that pursuant to the letter dated December 20, 2005, the option was modified to cover the shares of the capital stock of RJCG rather than those in the capital stock of Gestion Lagarde, thus disqualifying RJCG as a “Canadian-controlled private corporation.” [26]            Indeed, he took the initiative of raising the hypothesis that the appeals were doomed to fail on the basis of the assets and activities criterion set out in subsection 110.6(1) of the ITA (Reasons, para. 71). [27]            After having invited the parties to be heard on this new issue and having considered their written submissions, the TCC judge explained that none of the exceptions to the application of the deeming provision applied in this case (i.e.: see paragraph 110.6(14)(b)), and that paragraph 251(5)(b) had therefore to be applied with all attendant consequences (Reasons, para. 76). ...

In a case involving research as opposed to development, the references in the Northwest Hydraulic considerations to technological risk, uncertainty and advancement should therefore be considered as references to scientific risk and uncertainty, and the advancement of scientific knowledge. [8] [17]         The five Northwest Hydraulic considerations are questions the Court should turn its mind to in deciding if the statutory requirements of the definition of SR&ED are met in a particular case. ... Contrary to the Appellant’s position, a newly hypothesized formulation cannot on its own be considered either knowledge or the advancement of knowledge for these purposes. [50]         It is the absolute absence of testing of the natural health products by Life Choice after their formulations were hypothesized by Dr.  ...

(b) The second step involves the appellants’ adducing evidence to establish, if possible, either that some or all of the assumptions are wrong or that there are other material facts that the Minister failed to take into account and that he should have considered in exercising his discretion. ... Wrights' Canadian Ropes Ltd., contends the respondent, unless the Minister has not had regard to all the circumstances of the employment (as required by subparagraph 3(2)(c)(ii) of the Act), has considered irrelevant factors, or has acted in contravention of some principle of law, the court may not interfere. ...