Search - considered

Waldron, the defendant commissioner was not considered to have ‘‘attributes similar to those of a Court of justice” such as would be the case with a military court of inquiry or an investigation by an ecclesiastical commission. ... The nature of this ‘‘inquiry’’ must be considered in relation to the powers of the Minister as a whole under the Income Tax Act. ...

The Supreme Court also uses “argument” and “basis” interchangeably as the first reference is to the “Minister’s argument”, and in the immediately following sentence the Court concludes that the “Minister should not be allowed to advance a new basis for a reassessment”. [48] Following the addition of subsection 152(9) to the Act, there were a number of cases that considered whether this subsection would allow the Minister to raise a new argument. ... Rothstein J.A.’s comment that subsection 152(9) “is not relevant here in any event” indicates that this subsection was considered but would not have assisted the Minister if it had been applicable. [54] The finding that the Minister cannot include transactions that did not form the basis of an assessment reappears in subsequent decisions, including Walsh, discussed further below. ...

By itself it might not have much weight and might perhaps be considered as un afterthought; but there is evidence in the record that the execution of the contract was not progressing satisfactorily and the letter in question constitutes a mere confirmation of the statements made by the witnesses. ... If, on the contrary, the machine must be considered as divisible, the case is governed by the first proviso of section 86, 1(a). ...

In, Del Grande the Court essentially considered whether Mr. Del Grande de facto controlled the relevant corporations because he “…exercised a degree of control over the corporations vastly disproportionate to his minority position…”. [22] There is no reference to Fournier in Del Grande much less is there a rejection of the approach to in concert acting, set out therein; The reference to Del Grande and the other family acting in concert such that he controlled the companies came up only in obiter in Del Grande; [23] and The insistence that one person control the company by virtue of acting in concert with another comes rather close to collapsing the “in concert” and “de facto” criteria in McClarty. [59] The Blachford commentary came out in August 2022 just after the Veilleux decision and therefore it did not refer to Veilleux. ... McCague shared a common intent with her or any other worker. h) The other workers, except for Martel and Arthur [103] I considered carefully whether the following workers were contractors: Neil Van Vugt had his own flooring business; the Mill Brothers, Dylan and Robert had a small construction business; Jerry Mularsky, worked for top class construction; and Adam Och also worked for another construction company. [104] What ties all of these workers together is that their work more easily lent itself to being subcontracted out. [105] However, I don’t actually know what each person did with respect to the job. ...

I summarize the main points as follows: a) In civil litigation the volume of material produced combined with the length of time needed to bring a case to trial means that witness memories often fade; b) The past recollection recorded rule is often considered together with the “present memory refreshed rule”. ... However, it is the use of multiple cash transactions over years, combined with the materiality of the amounts donated that take the appellant’s actions from mere neglect to “indifference as to whether the law is complied with or not”. [78] In DeCosta, Chief Justice Bowman considered three factors as relevant to delineating gross negligence from ordinary negligence. ...

The same type of examination applies to rebates, and an amount that would have been payable as a rebate but was not because the registrant failed to claim it must also be considered in determining the net tax for the reporting period, and is defined as an “allowable rebate” under subsection 296(2.1). [63] When the amount of net tax is established, and there is an amount of tax due (after consideration, and including any “allowable credit” and “allowable rebate”), the Minister may make an additional assessment of tax, and even apply a penalty or interest under subsection 296(1). [64] However, when an overpayment is determined, pursuant to subsection 296(3), the Minister must set off that amount against other amounts owed by the taxpayer, or issue a refund. ... Therefore, on the date of the assessment, the first three reporting periods could no longer be claimed under subsection 225(4), and the Minister was therefore precluded from refunding them following the assessment, as provided under paragraph 296(4)(b). [69] As discussed, it is noteworthy that the “new” ITCs identified and considered by the Minister under paragraph 296(2)(a) are defined as being “allowable credits.” ...

Canada [3], (discussed in greater detail at Appendix “A”), the Appellant contends that courts have recognized that interest on tax refunds (“refund interest”) constitutes income from a business for the purposes of the Act because it “arises from a business decision on how much to pay in respect of a tax liability pending a final determination.” [4] [13] The Appellant’s reliance on Irving Oil [5] and Munich Re [6] is based on the presence of “an unsettled tax liability, a business decision of what amounts to pay in respect of the unsettled tax liability pending a resolution, a final determination of the tax liability, and a consequential adjustment to interest (payable or receivable).” [7] [14] According to the Appellant, arrears interest and refund interest are the mirror images of each other: if one is treated as business income because of a business decision that results in an overpayment of taxes, the other should be deductible in computing business income because it flows from the “same decision-making process.” [8] [15] With respect to its US tax obligations, the Appellant asserts that it did, in fact, make “a business decision at the relevant time to pay its obligation and no more” [9], since, as noted in the Agreed Statement of Facts, it “timely filed its US federal income tax returns for the 1997 to [2001] taxation years and paid any outstanding balances it believed it owed based on its tax returns as filed by the return-filing deadline.” [10] [16] The Appellant states that the factors considered in the decision it made at that time “include[d] other possible uses of funds, and potential consequences for arrears interest or refund interest once relevant tax liabilities are settled.” [11] [17] Relying on Jolly Farmer Products Inc. v. ... To the extent that they may influence the calculation of income, they will do so only on a case-by-case basis, depending on the facts of the taxpayer’s financial situation. (6) On reassessment, once the taxpayer has shown that he has provided an accurate picture of income for the year, which is consistent with the Act, the case law, and well-accepted business principles, the onus shifts to the Minister to show either that the figure provided does not represent an accurate picture, or that another method of computation would provide a more accurate picture. [56] [Emphasis added] [51] Consistent with the framework described above, the Act contains several rules that are designed either to further limit the deductibility of expenses, or to make more explicit the exclusion of expenses that would also not be considered deductible business expenses under subsection 9(1) of the Act. [52] These limitations include the items listed in subsection 18(1) of the Act, notably paragraph 18(1)(a), which prohibits the deduction of expenses not incurred for the purpose of earning income, and paragraph 18(1)(t), which applies to any amount paid or payable under the Act (other than taxes under Part XII.2 or Part XII.6). [53] The parties have drawn the Court’s attention primarily to four decisions, namely Roenisch [57], Potash Corporation [58], Irving Oil [59] and Munich Re [60]. ...

It is, however, an important factor to be considered in the determination of the subsequent relationship between the parties. ... " Strayer J.A. stated at paragraph 51 that "the nature and the purpose of the legislative scheme whose administration or enforcement is in question" constitute contextual elements to be considered in the interpretation of provisions related to mandatory production of documents. [101]        The Act already requires from the taxpayer to disclose an important amount of information. ... [Emphasis added.] [117]        The characterization of whether "a clear decision to pursue a criminal investigation" was made, is not to be considered with a pure criminal law perspective in mind. ...

  … In the case at bar, in contrast to the language considered by the Court in Black & Decker and Stanward, the legislation specifically provides that a newly amalgamated bank is "created" by the letters patent (s. 256(2)) and that the bank "created" by the letters patent is subject to all the liabilities set out in the Act (s. 256(3)). ... It would be considered a tax account or tax attribute by the Canada Revenue Agency.               ... Various options to combine the two credit unions were considered and finally the structure that has lead to this appeal (which was proposed by Fraser Milner Casgrain) was chosen. ...

Surely, the respondent could have adduced evidence that it had considered Equipment and AEH as two businesses, if that was the case, but it failed to do so.  ... Federal Court of Appeal, 95 D.T.C. 5575   119                     Writing for the Court of Appeal, Hugessen J.A. considered but ultimately rejected Hickman Motors’ argument that s. 88(1) creates a right to claim capital cost allowance which operates independently of s. 20(1)(a).  ... As Harris, supra, explains (at p. 159):   Where, however, a taxpayer who carries on a business also owns property that is not used as an integral part of the business (e.g., long-term investments held by a manufacturing corporation), the income yielded by this property will be considered property income and not business income.   ...