Search - considered

In deciding whether or not something is income, all the circumstances must be considered: the manner of receipt, the control over what is received, the liabilities and restrictions attached and the use made of what is received.... ... It seems to me that when these are considered together it becomes apparent that instead of supporting that theory, they are factors in its contradiction. ... As to the question of whether the trustees on. behalf of their respective primary trusts could legally enter into the partnership I would adopt the statement in the case of Regina v Knapman, 123 CCC 262 at 265, as follows: It is seen therefore that a trustee is considered to have a separate and distinct personality from that of the same person in his personal capacity. ...

For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the view of Pigeon J. in Lipson, supra, to the extent that it may have been applied to paragraph 18(1)(a), must now be considered to have been superseded by the rationale in Ludco. ... It is the direct use of the proceeds of the loan that is strictly considered in the case of interest expenses ... In his reasons in that case, Joyal J. at paragraph 38 notes that tax should be considered an element of cost “like production costs, processes, equipment, rates of extraction, rates of productivity, levels of training and the like.” ...

46                                By way of introduction to these issues, it is useful to discuss the statutory context of the ITA  , and whether s. 239 offences are properly considered regulatory or criminal for the purposes of Charter   analysis.  ... In McKinlay Transport, supra, this Court considered whether the predecessor provision to s. 231.2, employed in conjunction with an income tax audit, infringed s. 8   of the Charter  .  ... 80                                This Court considered the scope of the requirement power in Canadian Bank of Commerce v. ...

The expression “at arm’s length” was considered by Bonner J. in Mc- Nichol where, at pages 117 and 118, he discussed the concept as follows: Three criteria or tests are commonly used to determine whether the parties to a transaction are dealing at arm’s length. ... The second question is whether the transaction, albeit resulting in a tax benefit, is removed from subsection 245(3) because it: may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit. ... Subsection 245(4) reads: For greater certainty, subsection (2) does not apply to a transaction where it may reasonably be considered that the transaction would not result directly or indirectly in a misuse of the provisions of this Act or an abuse having regard to the provisions of this Act, other than this section, read as a whole. ...

The precise nature of its application for judicial review will be considered below. ... Administrative law courts mediate the clashes by applying doctrines founded upon decades of well-considered solutions to practical problems – a mountain of decided cases. ... However, the Prothonotary considered the affidavit proper, as it “goes to the issues of why this Court has jurisdiction to deal with the decision by way of judicial review” and “does not contain information which is unknown to the [Minister]” (at paragraph 24) ...

Section 174 is amended to achieve this result more directly by deeming, in new paragraph 174(e), the use of the property or service by the employee … to be that of the employer …  New paragraph 174(f) is added to clarify that the time at which the person is considered to have paid tax in respect of the supply is the time at which the allowance is paid.   ... For the purposes of this Part, where         (a) a person pays an allowance   (i) to an employee of the person,   (ii) where the person is a partnership, to a member of the partnership, or   (iii) where the person is a charity or a public institution, to a volunteer who gives services to the charity or institution for (iv) supplies all or substantially all of which are taxable supplies (other than zero-rated supplies) of property or services acquired in Canada by the employee, member or volunteer in relation to activities engaged in by the person, or   (v) the use in Canada, in relation to activities engaged in by the person, of a motor vehicle,         (b) an amount in respect of the allowance is deductible in computing the income of the person for a taxation year of the person for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, or would have been so deductible if the person were a taxpayer under that Act and the activity were a business, and         (c) in the case of an allowance to which subparagraph 6(1)(b)(v), (vi), (vii) or (vii.1) of that Act would apply   (i) if the allowance were a reasonable allowance for the purposes of that subparagraph, and   (ii) where the person is a partnership and the allowance is paid to a member of the   partnership, if the member were an employee of the partnership, or, where the person is a charity or a public institution and the allowance is paid to a volunteer, if the volunteer were an employee of the charity or institution,   the person considered, at the time the allowance was paid, that the allowance would be a reasonable allowance for those purposes and it is reasonable for the person to have considered, at that time, that the allowance would be a reasonable allowance for those purposes, the following rules apply:         (d) the person is deemed to have received a supply of the property or service,         (e) any consumption or use of the property or service by the employee, member or volunteer is deemed to be consumption or use by the person and not by the employee, member or volunteer, and         (f) the person is deemed to have paid, at the time the allowance is paid, tax in respect of the supply equal to the amount determined by the formula   A × (B/C) Where   A   is the amount of the allowance,   B   is (i) the total of the rate set out in subsection 165(1) and the tax rate for a participating province if     (A) all or substantially all of the supplies for which the allowance is paid were made in participating provinces, or     (B) the allowance is paid for the use of the motor vehicle in participating provinces, and   (ii) in any other case, the rate set out in subsection 165(1), and   C   is the total of 100% and the percentage determined for B.   ...

The necessary analysis will of course deal with the meaning to be given to these conditions and qualifications; but I suggest that they not be considered until after we have reviewed the facts surrounding this first agreement or, to use my phraseology, relating to this first stage of conclusion of the contract. ... It was on that date that plaintiff acquired 835 shares and it was the market value of the shares on that date which is to be considered. ... The courts have considered clauses of the kind at issue here many times, [9] though no case is similar to the instant case in all respects. ...

Canada, [38] the Federal Court of Appeal held that there must be a common connection or community of interest uniting shareholders of a particular corporation before they can be considered as a “group of persons” with respect to the control of a particular corporation. ... However, if new paragraph 256(7)(c) were applied to each of these examples, control of Lossco would be considered to have been acquired by a person or group of persons because the shares of Lossco issued to the shareholders of Pubco in each case are such that, if they had been acquired by one person, that person would have acquired control of Lossco. ... The paid‑up capital of VHHC was eliminated in the calculation of Copthorne’s paid‑up capital. [110]    In my opinion, the “abusive” nature of the transactions considered in Copthorne is less apparent than the abuse found to exist with regard to the transactions in the instant case. ...

He prepared the list of what he considered to be a fair market value for the items sold by Mrs Allen and Mr. ... This therefore must also be considered as exempt from seizure. There is another series of items acquired by the numbered company from Harry Burnside, who testified. ... It was considered in December 1979 that it would be desirable that some of the assets of the numbered company be liquidated if the Maple Leaf Company which was owned by it were to be allowed to increase the amount of outstanding loans due by it to the bank. ...

The courts below considered the meaning of the words “beneficially entitled” as used in subsection 2(5). ... Applying this reasoning to our hypothetical case, it would seem that a bequest of the shares of the first Alberta company to the second Alberta company could not be considered a transmission to the testator’s children, who are resident in Ontario, merely because they were the shareholders of the second Alberta company. ... Rand, J considered the nature of a beneficiary’s interest: But in addition to his capacity of representing the deceased, the executor in equity is looked upon as quasi-trustee for the beneficiaries; and the beneficiary is entitled to resort to that court to have the duty of the executor enforced. ...