Search - considered

" This item A applies in this case since we are dealing with the leasing of property and since, according to paragraph 127(11.8)(c), the " leasing of a property is considered to be the rendering of service. ... Then, if you know nothing about them, how were you able to reach the extremely clear and specific conclusion [that all the devices in question cannot be considered a spectrophotometer]? ...

He asked officials at Revenue Québec if he could obtain guidelines or criteria regarding member participation so that they would not be considered specified members, i.e., what a member must do to not be a specified member. ... In this respect, equity legislation that permits interest to be cancelled or waived in certain situations will be fully considered. ...

These circumstances must be taken into account, but must be considered against an objective “reasonably prudent person” standard. ... Although no investor was ultimately found, the Court considered that it was reasonable of the directors to believe that, had an investor been found, the failures to remit might have been prevented. ...

For tax purposes, damages or compensation received, either pursuant to a court judgment or an out-of-court settlement, may be considered as on account of income, capital, or windfall to the recipient. ... Applicable law [160]    Section 16.1 of the Tax Court of Canada Act provides that the Court may, on application, hold a hearing in camera if the circumstances justify it: 16.1  A hearing before the Court may, on the application of any party to a proceeding, other than Her Majesty in right of Canada or a Minister of the Crown, be held in camera if it is established to the satisfaction of the Court that the circumstances of the case justify in camera proceedings. [161]    In Union Carbide, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that a party that wants to keep confidential, or sensitive, evidence from the public may apply to have it considered in camera. ...

Knowing that the meeting of February 23, 2009, lasted only about 45 minutes, and considering the size of the amounts seized, it is difficult to understand the auditor’s expectations with respect to the meeting or, at the very least, what she would have considered sufficiently credible explanations to warrant some investigative work being undertaken. ... However, since only the amounts of Can$794,445 and Can$61,840 that were seized at the Jewellery Store were initially considered in calculating the net worth differential of Mr. ...

  [110]        Although a fishing licence may be considered to be an “interest” or a “ profit à prendre ”, the Supreme Court clearly stated in Saulnier that the finding of rights and privileges in respect of fishing licences should not be interpreted as limiting the Minister’s discretion or as expanding the scope of the privileges granted to licence holders under the Act and the Regulations ... Issues concerning the definition of the rights or interests related to fishing licences have already been considered by the courts and need not be revisited (Comeau’s Sea Food, Carpenter and Kimoto) ...

He argues, whether correctly or not, the Minister was responding to the tax payer’s claim by issuing notices indicating nil amount of RITCs even though the years at issue were long since statute barred but considered he could not issue refunds after the statute barred period.  ...     [88]            Guylaine Gaudreault, the decision-maker, during her cross-examination said: (1)                  To her knowledge before she was named acting Assistant Director of the SREDD Division in the Montreal TSO, Signalgene had never requested the determination of its RITCs (Transcript p 26). (2)                  The September 2008 request was not a request for the determination of its RITCs by the applicant; that occurred on September 10, 2010; it was a brand new request (Transcript pp 264 and 299). (3)                  Recognized the request to issue the Notice of Determination for Signalgene’s RITC, was not statute-barred, that is, made out of time; such a request could be made at any time (Transcript pp 329, 330 and 404). (4)                  Her July 27, 2010 decision had no impact on her decision being reviewed this proceeding because it is not related to the same request (Transcript p 333). (5)                  If the request for the issuance of a Notice of Determination of RITCs had been made and no Notice of Assessment or Re-assessment had been issued before she stated “of course, we would have had to provide one ” (Transcript pp 404 and 414). (6)                  In her mind, the decision to refuse the request to issue Notices of Determination for the Relevant Taxation Years was based on the fact that CRA had already issued one and was not obliged to issue another one (Transcript p 409); a conclusion which was based on the fact she considered the Notices of Assessment or Re-assessment issued (after audit) to be the same as a Notice of Determination (Transcript pp 313, 335, 371 and 413) but she recognized that she had not taken into account in reaching her decision the February 2002 Tax Ruling (Transcript p 322) which expressed a contrary view. (7)                  At page 414 of the Transcript she stated she could make multiple determinations and was not limited to only making one determination and when asked why she did not do so when it was requested for this first time on September 10, 2010 she answered “ It probably had to do with all the previous requests that had been denied because I think this claimant made several requests from different angles and it was always no and I didn’t feel I had the obligation to issue a Notice of Determination that had already been issued.” (8)                  Did not consider the right of the taxpayer to amend his/her returns when she decided to refuse the request for the issuance of Notices of Determination (Transcript p 421). (9)                  In short, the judicial review application was not filed out of time ...

I read the first sentence as meaning that the Chief Justice considered that the evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction,—which is a question of fact. ... With respect, I agree with Schroeder J.A. that it does not appear from the record that the learned trial judge erred in refusing to consider the entire documentation as relevant to each count and that ground, therefore, need not be considered further. ...

I find these documents to be very strong evidence that Gowlings considered itself to be counsel for Mr. ... Chaplin stated that she understood my concerns but that they were not something she considered at the time. [89] I do not believe her. [107]      All of the above suggests that the transaction was only recorded in 2007 because Mr. ...

Candace Keats, the CRA Appeals Officer who initially considered this matter, did not accept the expenditure as deductible because Mr. ... Therefore, I have not considered the cheque. [85]          See the untitled and undated two-page document submitted by counsel for the Crown to the Court on January 30, 2017. [86]          The price of the watch was $3,875 and the provincial sales tax was $310, resulting in a total expenditure of $4,185. [87]          The table of 2006 entertainment items is taken from Exhibit R-1, Tab 4, p. 15. [88]          See Exhibit R-1, Tab 4, p. 15. [89]          The table of 2006 marketing expenses is taken from Exhibit R-1, Tab 4, p. 16. [90]          Exhibit A-3, Tab 40, p. 4, item 19. [91]          Exhibit A-3, Tab 40, p. 4, item 23. [92]          Exhibit R-1, Tab 4, p. 16. [93]          The table of consulting fees is compiled from entries in the audit working papers; see Exhibit R-1, Tab 3, p. 13, and Tab 9, p. 30. [94]          Exhibit R-1, Tab 3, p. 14, and Tab 9, p. 31. ...