Search - considered

While intentions are not generally relevant in determining whether there is a commencement day that marks when child support payments are brought into the new non‑taxable/non‑deductible regime, since the Act itself seems to leave no room to consider intentions, in some cases, intentions may be considered as appeared to be the case in Dangerfield v. ...

(Emphasis added) [35]     Reference should also be made to Lanthier [19] in which Lamarre J. noted: 8           In Sabour, supra, Judge Bowie of this Court wrote as follows regarding the position taken by Judge Archambault in Bergeron: 10         As Archambault J. has said, the line of reasoning that he developed in Bergeron was not specifically considered in any of the decided cases. ...

  [65]     Lastly, counsel for the Respondent claims that the fact that 2159 reported the $30,000 that it received from Purdel as business income shows that the Appellants themselves considered the Service Contract genuine ...

(The difference of $150,000 is considered later in these reasons.) The Minister added the amount of $278,000 to Mr. ...

The Queen, supra, a case much discussed by both counsel, the Federal Court of Appeal considered the proper method of computing the capital gain realized by a taxpayer upon the disposition of shares that had been bought by the taxpayer using U.S. currency and sold by her for consideration in U.S. currency. ...

Where all or some of the necessary and substantive elements on a prescribed form are missing, or incorrectly stated by a taxpayer, the form will be considered invalid and ineffective under the appropriate provision. [41]     The second T664 form filed in 2001 cannot be used to correct the substantive failures in the 1994 T664 form, quite apart from the fact that it was neither dated nor signed. ...

The Payor's business can be considered family in nature but from there to comparing it to a seasonal family farm business is a stretch. ...

On first reflection this sort of income could realistically be considered either business income or property income. ...

After determining those drivers to be subject to a substantial degree of control and direction and having considered other factors, Judge MacLatchy – at paragraph 18 – stated:               This Court must look at the whole scheme of arrangement in light of the evidence before it, not just a particular part thereof. ...

In making his decision, the Respondent relied on the following assumptions of fact: (a)       The Payor is a business which provides bookkeeping, accounting and tax services to its clients (the "clients"); (b)       At all material time, the Payor effectively operated as a partnership (the "partnership"); (c)       The partnership commenced in April, 1998; (d)       The Appellant was one of the partners in the partnership; (e)       The Appellant performed various duties for the Payor's clients (the "clients") which included bookkeeping, accounting, tax services, consultation on labour matters and other related duties; (f)        The Appellant performed her duties either on the Payor's premises, at the client's premises and at her home; (g)       The Appellant's remuneration was $34.00 per hour, plus 1% of the billings to clients and 1.5% of the Accounts Receivable collections; (h)       The Appellant did not receive vacation pay or paid vacations from the Payor; (i)        The Payor did not provide any benefit plans to the Appellant; (j)        The Appellant had signing authority on the Payor's bank account; (k)       The Appellant participated in management decisions for the Payor; (l)        For the years 2000 and 2001, the Appellant reported self-employed income on her income tax returns; (m)      At all material time, the Appellant provided services to others besides the Payor's clients; (n)       For the years 2000 and 2001, the Appellant did not report any employment income on her income tax returns; (o)       For the years 2000 and 2001, the Payor considered the Appellant self-employed and the Payor did not deduct any Employment Insurance premiums from the Appellant's remuneration, nor did the Payor issue the Appellant a T4. [5]      Kevin Campbell intervened in the appeal in the name of Kevin Campbell, Campbell, Campbell & Page in support of the Minister's decision. ...