Search - considered

  [103]   Secondly, the worksheets created by the Appellant (the supposed ‘invoices’ shown to the auditor) would not be considered invoices in the construction industry and the Appellant did not receive payment based on them. ... In fact, evidence that Martyn, Dooley considered these adjustments appropriate and proper is indicated at Exhibit A-3, where at page 70, under the heading “Following to be reviewed with Ralph Aquino”, only a very minor GST matter involving a vehicle was raised, for which Martyn, Dooley thought Revenue Canada might take exception. ... Subsection 123(1), and in particular, the relationship between paragraphs 123(1)(a) and (b), was considered by this Court in Immeubles Sansfaçon Inc. v. ...

Morand considered these reports to be the proof of alcoholic beverage sales, and since no bills were handed to patrons, Ms.  ... However, counsel for the Appellant considered it very important to emphasize the enormous difference between the amount of the criminal prosecution, namely $61,946.59, and the $314,832.51 adjustment to the net tax in the assessment in issue (Exhibit A‑1) ... Légaré said that since he considered the government's numbers completely unrealistic to say the least, he even offered the officials the keys to the business, telling them that they would undoubtedly run his business better than he could, because he had never seen amounts of that kind ...

  [104] Mainville J.A emphasizes that the objective standard encompasses the factual aspects of the circumstances of the director whereas the former test considered subjective motivations. ... These circumstances must be taken into account, but must be considered against an objective ‘reasonably prudent person’ standard ...   [155] I acknowledge that I made my decision without giving equal weight to all the factors I have considered to be relevant. ...

(h) Deliberately Omitting Assumptions [30]   When pleading the assumed facts on which the Minister based a particular assessment, the AGC has an obligation to plead all of those facts, [22] completely and accurately, [23] even if one or more of those facts may, in the view of the AGC, be considered irrelevant, [24] may not support the assessment, [25] or may assist the appellant. [26] These principles were summarized by former Associate Chief Justice Bowman (as he then was) in Mungovan, as follows: The respondent has an obligation to disclose all of the facts upon which the assessment was based. ... With respect to paragraph 23 of the Notice of Appeal, the AGC denies the allegation of fact in that paragraph and, for clarity, the AGC states the following: a)   the AGC admits that the Appellant, in its notice of objection to the Minister’s reassessment dated May 26, 2014, provided a description of facts that contained allegations of facts similar to the alleged facts described in paragraphs 5 through 20 of the Notice of Appeal (the “Notice of Objection Facts”); b)   the AGC admits that the appeals officer of the Minister who considered the Appellant’s objection did not challenge most of the Notice of Objection Facts to the extent the allegations were facts rather than conclusions of law; and c)   however, to the extent that any of the statements in the Notice of Objection Facts contain conclusions of law, the AGC states that the appeals officer’s acceptance of those statements are [sic] not an acceptance of those conclusions of law. [102]   The first two lines of paragraph 18 of the Amended Reply contain a straightforward denial of the facts alleged in paragraph 23 of the Notice of Appeal. ... HOOL is alleging, in particular, that there was a critical assumption made by the CRA at the audit, reassessment and appeals stages that the Crown deliberately left out of its Reply, and then later its Amended Reply. [116]   By way of background, prior to the hearing of this Motion, HOOL filed the affidavit of Reinard Jiloca, Exhibit “B” of which is a copy of the Report on Objection prepared in April 2007 by the appeals officer or officers who considered HOOL’s Notice of Objection. ...

.), the Honourable Judge Hamlyn, Tax Court of Canada, considered the appeals of taxpayers who had invested with Thill in the Enjoy magazine venture in the United States. ... C.A.), considered an appeal by taxpayers who had their appeal dismissed by the Tax Court of Canada. ... He did not consider all of the factors he should have considered, nor did he assess the context fully. ...

Before me, Akme also noted that the February 2021 internal communication was before the Officer when he rendered the Decision, yet there is no indication that the Officer considered it before rejecting its claims. ... How can a demand for documents be considered reasonable—even at the lower end of the reasonableness scale—if the Officer did not review the documents through the prism which Akme has provided, including addressing the legal arguments going to the propriety of the demand itself in relation to purportedly outstanding issues? ... Regulations Règlements (4) For the purposes of this section, the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, make regulations prescribing (4) Pour l’application du présent article, le gouverneur en conseil peut, sur recommandation du ministre de la Sécurité publique et de la Protection civile, préciser par règlement: (a) the circumstances in which, and the classes of goods in respect of which, a refund or drawback of duties levied under sections 21.1 to 21.3 or under the Special Import Measures Act, a surtax or temporary duty imposed under Division 4 of Part 2, a tax levied under the Excise Tax Act or a duty levied under the Excise Act, 2001 may not be granted under subsection (1); a) les catégories de marchandises inadmissibles au remboursement ou au drawback des droits perçus au titre des articles 21.1 à 21.3 ou de la Loi sur les mesures spéciales d’importation, des surtaxes ou droits temporaires imposés en application de la section 4 de la partie 2, des taxes perçues au titre de la Loi sur la taxe d’accise ou des droits perçus au titre de la Loi de 2001 sur l’accise, ainsi que les cas d’inadmissibilité; (b) the portion of duties paid that may be granted as a refund or drawback under subsection (1); b) la fraction des droits payés susceptible d’être versée au titre du remboursement ou du drawback; (c) the persons or classes of persons who may make an application for a refund or drawback under subsection (1); c) les personnes ou les catégories de celles-ci qui peuvent demander le remboursement ou le drawback; (d) the uses to which goods may be put or operations that goods may undergo after which the goods will be considered to be in the same condition; d) les usages qui peuvent être faits des marchandises ou les travaux qu’elles peuvent subir sans que leur état soit réputé modifié; (e) goods that are considered to be of the same class; e) les marchandises à classer dans la même catégorie;   (f) the time within which an application for a refund or drawback must be made; f) le délai de présentation de la demande de remboursement ou de drawback; (g) the circumstances in which an application for a refund or drawback may be made; g) les cas dans lesquels une demande de remboursement ou de drawback peut être faite; (h) restrictions as to the classes of goods for which a refund or drawback may be granted; and h) les restrictions quant aux catégories de marchandises qui sont admissibles au remboursement ou au drawback; (i) the circumstances in which a refund or drawback may not be granted. i) les cas d’inadmissibilité au remboursement ou au drawback. ...

James granted stock options only to those employees whom he considered key to the Company’s growth and development. [27] This objective is consistent with paragraph 1.1 of the document under which the plan was established and in which James was referred to as the “Majority Shareholder”: The purpose of the Plan is to secure for the Corporation and its shareholders the benefits of the incentive inherent in share ownership by Eligible Persons who, in the judgment of the Majority Shareholder, could have a significant impact on the future growth and success of the Corporation. ... Pettypiece his initial 25,000 Trust Units: Scott McGregor was a big one because the committee felt that he deserved a lot more than he did in the [stock option] plan, based on his contributions in the company, and Murphy [Pettypiece] was also considered to be an increasingly important person in the organization, justifying his allocation of additional trust units. [65] [103] On September 3, 2014, the Committee decided to grant Mr. ... Statutory Appendix Income of beneficiary 104(13) There shall be included in computing the income for a particular taxation year of a beneficiary under a trust such of the following amounts as are applicable: (a) in the case of a trust (other than a trust referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition trust in subsection 108(1)), … Designation in respect of taxable dividends 104(19) A portion of a taxable dividend received by a trust, in a particular taxation year of the trust, on a share of the capital stock of a taxable Canadian corporation is, for the purposes of this Act other than Part XIII, deemed to be a taxable dividend on the share received by a taxpayer, in the taxpayer’s taxation year in which the particular taxation year ends, and is, for the purposes of paragraphs 82(1)(b) and 107(1)(c) and (d) and section 112, deemed not to have been received by the trust, if (a) an amount equal to that portion (i) is designated by the trust, in respect of the taxpayer, in the trust’s return of income under this Part for the particular taxation year, and (ii) may reasonably be considered (having regard to all the circumstances including the terms and conditions of the trust) to be part of the amount that, because of paragraph (13)(a), subsection (14) or section 105, was included in computing the income for that taxation year of the taxpayer; Designation in respect of taxable capital gains 104(21) For the purposes of sections 3 and 111, except as they apply for the purposes of section 110.6, and subject to paragraph 132(5.1)(b), an amount in respect of a trust’s net taxable capital gains for a particular taxation year of the trust is deemed to be a taxable capital gain, for the taxation year of a taxpayer in which the particular taxation year ends, from the disposition by the taxpayer of capital property if (a) the amount (i) is designated by the trust, in respect of the taxpayer, in the trust’s return of income under this Part for the particular taxation year, and (ii) may reasonably be considered (having regard to all the circumstances including the terms and conditions of the trust) to be part of the amount that, because of paragraph (13)(a), subsection (14) or section 105, was included in computing the income for that taxation year of the taxpayer; Beneficiaries’ taxable capital gain 104(21.2) Where … a trust referred to in subsection 7(2) designates an amount in respect of a beneficiary in respect of its net taxable capital gains for a taxation year (in this subsection referred to as the “designation year”), (a) the trust shall in its return of income under this Part for the designation year designate an amount in respect of its eligible taxable capital gains, if any, for the designation year in respect of the beneficiary equal to the amount determined in respect of the beneficiary under each of subparagraphs 104(21.2)(b)(i) and 104(21.2)(b)(ii); and (b) the beneficiary is, for the purposes of sections 3, 74.3 and 111 as they apply for the purposes of section 110.6, (i) deemed to have disposed of the capital property referred to in clause (ii)(A), (B) or (C) if a taxable capital gain is determined in respect of the beneficiary for the beneficiary’s taxation year in which the designation year ends under those clauses, and (ii) deemed to have a taxable capital gain for the beneficiary’s taxation year in which the designation year ends … and (B) from a disposition of a capital property that is a qualified small business corporation share (as defined for the purpose of section 110.6) of the beneficiary equal to the amount determined by the formula (A × B × F)/(D × E) where A is the lesser of (I) the amount determined by the formula G- H where G is the total of amounts designated under subsection (21) for the designation year by the trust, and H is the total of amounts designated under subsection (13.2) for the designation year by the trust, and (II) the trust’s eligible taxable capital gains for the designation year, B is the amount, if any, by which the amount designated under subsection (21) for the designation year by the trust in respect of the beneficiary exceeds the amount designated under subsection (13.2) for the year by the trust in respect of the beneficiary for the taxation year, C is the amount, if any, that would be determined under paragraph 3(b) for the designation year in respect of the trust’s capital gains and capital losses if the only properties referred to in that paragraph were properties that, at the time they were disposed of, were qualified farm properties, qualified fishing properties or qualified farm or fishing properties of the trust, D is the total of all amounts each of which is the amount determined for B for the designation year in respect of a beneficiary under the trust, E is the total of the amounts determined for C and F for the designation year in respect of the beneficiary, and F is the amount, if any, that would be determined under paragraph 3(b) for the designation year in respect of the trust’s capital gains and capital losses if the only properties referred to in that paragraph were properties that, at the time they were disposed of, were qualified small business corporation shares of the trust, other than qualified farm property, qualified fishing property or qualified farm or fishing property, and for the purposes of section 110.6, those capital properties shall be deemed to have been disposed of by the beneficiary in that taxation year of the beneficiary. ...

Nets and traps were, from that point onwards, considered class 8 capital assets; however, as a matter of policy, we do allow fishermen to use an inventory method to expense nets and traps. ... The issue of the transformers' life expectancy has already been considered above. ...        (1) Notwithstanding paragraphs 18(1)(a), (b) and (h), in computing a taxpayer's income for a taxation year from a business or property, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as are wholly applicable to that source or such part of the following amounts as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto:   (e.2) such portion of the lesser of   (i) the premiums payable by the taxpayer under a life insurance policy (other than an annuity contract) in respect of the year, where   (A) an interest in the policy is assigned to a restricted financial institution in the course of a borrowing from the institution,   (B) the interest payable in respect of the borrowing is or would, but for subsections 18(2) and (3.1) and sections  21 and 28, be deductible in computing the taxpayer's income for the year, and   (C) the assignment referred to in clause (A) is required by the institution as collateral for the borrowing and   (ii) the net cost of pure insurance in respect of the year, as determined in accordance with the regulations, in respect of the interest in the policy referred to in clause (i)(A),   as can reasonably be considered to relate to the amount owing from time to time during the year by the taxpayer to the institution under the borrowing;   [46]     It is the position of the Appellants that this insurance was required by the lender and should be deductible. ...

Ouellet said that he considered the amount of $12,134.95 a loan repayment. ... Ouellet considered a $10,000 deposit, made in 1995, to be a loan repayment. ...   [106]   The factors to be considered are set out at paragraph 94:   (a) Did the authorities have reasonable grounds to lay charges? ...

The province guaranteed the debts but this in itself does not make NSPC an agent of the Crown. [21]          Some of these factors were considered relevant in Metropolitan Meat Industry Board v. ... The following passage from Lord Haldane's judgment at pp. 904-6 is illustrative of the distinction that must be considered here.                 ... The Queen, 97 DTC 1173, reversed 98 DTC 6570. [54]          Had the matter come before me as an ordinary appeal from an assessment I would not have considered myself constrained to accept the issue as framed by the parties. ...