Search - considered

Since only the nature and not the amount of each loss is in issue, it follows, I think, that whether the two aforesaid losses are deductible or not depends on whether, in the light of the evidence, they should be considered as business or non-business losses having regard to the two above-mentioned sections of the Act, which read as follows: “12. (1) In computing income, no deduction shall be made in respect of (b) an outlay, loss or replacement of capital, a payment on account of capital or an allowance in respect of depreciation, obsolescence or depletion except as expressly permitted by this Part, 139. (1) In this Act, (e) ‘business’ includes a profession, calling, trade, manufacture or undertaking of any kind whatsoever and includes an adventure or concern in the nature of trade but does not include an office or employment; (x) ‘loss’ means a loss computed by applying the provisions of this Act respecting computation of income from a business mutatis mutandis (but not including in the computation a dividend or part of a dividend the amount whereof would be deductible under section 28 in computing taxable income) minus any amount by which a loss operated to reduce the taxpayer’s income from other sources for purpose of income tax for the year in which it was sustained; ’ ’ Besides the exhibits, the evidence on behalf of the appellant consists of his own testimony and that of Mr. ...

The judgment of Jenkins, J. was affirmed in the Court of Appeal but, in that Court, the question of the effect of the Rule against Perpetuities was neither argued nor considered. ...

Section 18 and the relevant parts of Section 20 of The Sale of Goods Act, R.S.M. 1940, c. 185, must therefore be considered: “18. ...

A. devises lands to B. on condition to pay C. a sum of money, and no clause of entry; this is no charge on the estate to give the legatee of the money a lien on the lands, but the heir at law shall enter and take advantage of the breach of the condition, and yet in this court he shall be considered only as a trustee for the legatee. ...

He considered that no portion should be capitalized as he could not find that any capital asset had been created or enhanced in value by the expen- ditures. ...

Brown considered that would be of benefit to these companies? A. Yes, sir. ...

The respondent’s reason for increasing the aggregate net value of the estate as set out in his decision, following the Notice of Appeal, was as follows: “The Honourable the Minister of National Revenue having duly considered the facts and reasons set forth in the Notice of Appeal and matters thereto relating hereby affirms the said assessment as having been made in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in particular on the ground that the said Walter William Chipman was at the time of his death competent to dispose of property which he was given power to appropriate by the Will of the late Maude M. ...

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? ...

Kaur testified that the CRA considered 1444932 Ontario Limited to be the designated member of the Partnership; [18] and Mr. ...

The Applicant had the right to obtain full disclosure of the documents that were considered by the Minister in the course of his own audit (HSBC Bank Canada v The Queen, 2010 TCC 228 at paras 13-15), the right to challenge the admissibility of any documents relied on by the Crown on the basis of privilege, and could have challenged the assessments themselves on the basis that privileged documents were relied on in assessing him, if applicable (JP Morgan at para 82, citing Redeemer Foundation v. ...