Search - considered

.- For the purposes of this subdivision, where the result of one or more sales, exchanges, declarations of trust, or other transactions of any kind whatever is that a taxpayer has disposed of property under circumstances such that he may reasonably be considered to have artificially or unduly (a) reduced the amount of his gain from the disposition, (b) created a loss from the disposition, or (c) increased the amount of his loss from the disposition, the taxpayer’s gain or loss, as the case may be, from the disposition of the property shall be computed as if such reduction, creation or increase, as the case may be, had not occurred. ...

  [11]            Having considered those principles of interpretation, Justice Lamarre concluded that it is obvious that the conditions of subsection 40(3.3) must all be met for subsection 40(3.4), which provides that a loss is deemed to be nil, to apply. ...

Magee, while correctly acknowledging that the context and purpose of a statutory provision must always be considered, comment that "[i]t would introduce intolerable uncertainty into the Income Tax Act if clear language in a detailed provision of the Act were to be qualified by unexpressed exceptions derived from a court's view of the object and purpose of the provision": Principles of Canadian Income Tax Law (2nd ed. 1997), at pp. 475-76. ...

That is sufficient to make the subsidy consideration within the meaning of the Act. [34]            Before concluding, I note that after finding that the subsidy did not constitute consideration, the trial judge considered whether the supply could nonetheless have been exempt under section 5 of Schedule V (reasons for judgment, paragraph 33). ...

Gotlieb's Testimony: [17] He considered the KDS a memory aid and information retrieval system. ...

The learned Trial Judge also considered that failure on the part of the appellant to register any horses in its name “is clearly misleading to third parties” and that “toleration by it of Ken Allen keeping some of them registered in his own name confused creditors seeking to check ownership by obtaining information” from the records kept under the Livestock Pedigree Act. ...

The question was raised that because the employer was not so obliged whether the defendant could be considered to be “required” to pay these expenses “under the contract of employment” in the absence of a positive provision requiring him to do so. ...

It reads:         Where the members of a partnership have agreed to share, in a specified proportion, any income or loss of the partnership from any source or from sources in a particular place, as the case may be, or any other amount in respect of any activity of the partnership that is relevant to the computation of the income or taxable income of any of the members thereof, and the principal reason for the agreement may reasonably be considered to be the reduction or postponement of the tax that might otherwise have been or become payable under this Act, the share of each member of the partnership in the income or loss, as the case may be, or in that other amount, is the amount that is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances including the proportions in which the members have agreed to share profits and losses of the partnership from other sources or from sources in other places. [34]     The arrangements fall squarely within that provision. ...

Canadian investment income for a taxation year is the aggregate of: 1. taxable capital gains for the year less allowable capital losses for the year from dispositions of property to the extent that they may reasonably be considered to be income or losses, as the case may be, from sources in Canada; and 2. all amounts each of which is the corporation's income for the year from a source in Canada that is property net of all expenses; minus 3. the current years losses from a source in Canada that is property. ...

What is the line which separates the two classes of cases may be difficult to define, and each case must be considered according to its facts; the question to be determined being— Is the sum of gain that has been made a mere enhancement of value by realising a security, or is it a gain made in an operation of business in carrying out a scheme for profit-making?” ...