Search - considered

Counsel for the appellant argues that the liability to pay the premiums was that of the Company; that payment in any one year of that liability could not be considered as the income of the appellant; that he did not receive it directly or indirectly, although at some future date he might (as in fact, he did) receive benefit from it; and also that the tax paid by the Company was never received by the appellant either directly or indirectly and was not therefore taxable income. ...

. ***** ‘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 profitmaking? ...

Special Income Comers [1921] A.C. 1, and considered in Skinner v. Attorney-General [1940] A.C. 350. ...

Manning, acting on behalf of himself and all other holders of preference shares in the capital stock of the company, after reciting that the capital of the company is divided into 150,000 7% cumulative preference shares of the par value of $5.00 each and 35,000 common shares without nominal or par value, that all the preference shares are issued and paid up, that dividends in respect of the preference shares are undeclared and in arrears for the period of four and one half years, that the amount of the said dividends has been earned through the operations of the company, but that it is considered inexpedient to deplete the working capital of the company by the payment of sueh dividends forthwith, that upon the execution of this agreement the directors of the company propose to declare dividends upon the preference shares in respect of the period of four and one half years, payable in accordance with the terms of certain notes of the company to be issued, that Fred C. ...

The statute there considered was the Finance Act, 1894, the relevant provisions of which are all reproduced in the Nova Scotia statute set out above. ...

The trial judge considered that a previous decision of the Appellate Division in In Re Companies Act, In Re Northern Transport Co. ...

Applicability of 53(1)(c) to strike [30] Pursuant to paragraph 53(1)(c) of the Rules, the Tax Court may strike out or expunge all or part of a pleading on the grounds that the pleading is an abuse of the process of the Court. [31] A party’s conduct is considered an abuse of process when the party has deliberately failed to cooperate or comply with the rules or court orders causing delay and prejudice. [15] [32] Moreover, it is possible for there to be an abuse of process when the Minister withholds facts central to the making of the assessment, as the Minister has an obligation to disclose the findings of fact and law on which the assessment was made. [16] [33] The party wishing to strike a pleading has the onus of establishing that it should be struck. [17] This onus has been described as a heavy one. [18] [34] This Court should only strike a pleading without leave to amend if the defect is incurable by amendment. [19] In order for a claim to be struck without leave to amend, there must not be a “scintilla” of a legitimate cause for action. [20] [35] Generally, amendments to pleadings should be permitted unless it would cause prejudice that cannot be compensated by an award of costs. [21] [36] The answer to the demand for the particulars by the respondent, poorly communicated as it was, has provided an arm’s length value that is relied upon by the respondent to support the assessment. ...

As I will discuss, such a supply constitutes an exempt supply. [25] In summary, there are no facts before me that would lead me to question the concession made by the parties that the Appellant did not claim any input tax credits with respect to the purchase of or improvements to the Condominium. [26] The only issue before the Court is the remaining condition that must be satisfied before the sale of the Condominium will be considered an exempt supply: the sale of the Condominium must constitute the sale of a residential complex. [27] Residential complex is defined in subsection 123(1) of the GST Act. ...

For the purposes of paragraph a of section 657 and sections 663, 667 and 672 to 676, an amount shall not be considered payable in a taxation year unless it has actually been paid in the year to the person to whom it was payable or unless that person was entitled to demand payment of it in that year.   663.   ...

[Page 1192] It must also be considered that, by virtue of s. 153(3) the employees are deemed to have received their wages in full, so that they are liable for income tax on that basis. ... This question was considered by Osler J. in Royal Trust Co. v. Montex Apparel Industries Ltd. [8] His conclusion denying the claim for Unemployment Insurance deductions was [Page 1200] affirmed on appeal [9]. ...