Search - considered

By the application of subsection 110.6(11), the appellant is deemed to have dealt with herself, meaning that the transaction is considered as having been carried out with a person who is not at arm’s length to the appellant. ...

United States, supra, the subject was fully considered in determining that neither the value of quarters nor the amount received as commutation of quarters by an Army officer is included within his taxable income. ...

In London Life, Stone J.A. considered whether an insurance company was carrying on business in Bermuda through an agent which it had engaged to perform certain sales related functions in that country. ...

The respondent states that the points raised by the appellants in their objections and appeals have not been considered at the audit level and their fast tracking the matters into court not only puts a spanner into the orderly and deliberate progress of the audit process but also catapults the respondent into court with unseemly haste. [24]     Although this may be inconvenient for the CCRA, it is not a reason to deprive a taxpayer- whether it be a huge multinational corporation or the humblest one of Her Majesty's loyal subjects- of clear statutory rights that the Income Tax Act confers. [25]     Those rights are simple and straightforward: a taxpayer who objects to an assessment can file a notice of objection within 90 days of the assessment and if the Minister of National Revenue does not respond by way of a confirmation or a reassessment within 90 days of the filing of the notice of objection the taxpayer may appeal to the Tax Court of Canada. [26]     There are a few restrictions on the right of appeal, such as the following. ...

The relevant parts of the Income Tax Act are as follows: 67.1(1) For the purpose of this Act, other than sections 62, 63 and 118.2, an amount paid or payable in respect of the human consumption of food or beverages or the enjoyment of entertainment shall be deemed to be 80% of the lesser of (a) the amount actually paid or payable in respect thereof, and (b) an amount in respect thereof that would be reasonable in the circumstances. 67.1(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an amount paid or payable by a person in respect of the consumption of food or beverages or the enjoyment of entertainment where the amount (a) is paid or payable for food, beverages or entertainment provided for, or in expectation of, compensation in the ordinary course of a business car- ried on by that person of providing the food, beverages or entertainment for compensation; (b) relates to a fund-raising event the primary purpose of which is to benefit a registered charity; (c) is an amount for which the person is compensated and the amount of the compensation is reasonable and specifically identified in writing to the person paying the compensation; (d) is required to be included in computing the income of an employee of the person or would be so required but for subparagraph 6(6)(«)(ii); or (e) is incurred by the person for food, beverages or entertainment generally available to all individuals employed by the person at a particular place of business of the person and consumed or enjoyed by such individuals. 67.1(4) For the purposes of this section, (a) no amount paid or payable for travel on an airplane, train or bus shall be considered to be in respect of food, beverages or entertainment consumed or enjoyed while travelling thereon; and (b) “entertainment” includes amusement and recreation. ...

The other legislative provisions on which the reasons were based must also be considered. ...

Interpretation 67.1.(4) For the purposes of this section, 67.1.(4)(a) no amount paid or payable for travel on an airplane, train or bus shall be considered to be in respect of food, beverages or entertainment consumed or enjoyed while travelling thereon; and 67.1.(4)(b) "entertainment" includes amusement and recreation. ...

The Minister considered that objection and agreed that the reassessment was out of time. [31]            The 1989 objection was under consideration at the same time as the objections to the 1991 and 1992 loss determinations. ...

Reactivation was considered necessary to conceal United States involvement in the agreement. ...

It obviously considered the public interest entailed in enforcement and the private interest affected by search and seizure, and concluded that procedural fairness was achieved by the section as drafted. ...