Search - considered

It is thus a cardinal rule of interpretation that the context in which a word in the Act appears must always be considered in order to ascertain its true meaning. Here the meaning of the word “year” in the expression “year immediately following the taxation year’’ in Section 5(p) must be determined and the context in which it appears must be considered. ... I have already referred to Section 4(5) of chapter 43 of the Statutes of 1944-1945 but Section 4(6) of the 1944 amendments should also be considered. ...

The fundamental difficulty with this argument is that the Applicant only challenged the first-level review Officer’s decision on the basis that he had not considered the accountant’s move. ... She concluded that it is but “one factor considered to determine whether or not the CRA will cancel or waive penalties and interest”. ... Moreover, as the Respondent notes, the first-level review Officer considered these circumstances, but did not receive any further explanation or information from the Applicant when requested. ...

No explanation given as to why this income received by the applicant in 2019 is not considered income. 3. ... Considering the Applicant’s statements that he was frequently compensated in food and hotel rooms, did not have consistent hours or a contract, and did not keep track of any income received, the Third Reviewer concluded that the Applicant had not demonstrated that any income from this source could reasonably be considered self-employment income. [15] In paragraph 34 of her affidavit, Ms. ... In my opinion, based on the information and documentary evidence, including information available about the Applicant’s tax history that was considered by the officer, the decision maker reasonably found that the Applicant was not eligible for benefits under the Act because he did not meet the income threshold. [36] In the result, this application for judicial review is dismissed. [37] The Respondent seeks costs. ...

The Officer was also asked, if she considered the Applicant’s income and deductions from income for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years as recorded on CRA’s computer system as part of her review, then what was the basis of her conclusion? ... In this case, the record demonstrates that CRA considered all of the documents submitted by the Applicant. ... Having considered the factors listed in sub rule 400(3) of the Rules, and all other circumstances of this case, I find that no award for costs is warranted in this matter. ...

Since the concept of a “business” is not exhaustive, the Courts have identified a number of factors to be considered to determine whether actions or activities that have a personal element constitute the carrying on of a business for the purposes of subsection 9(1) and paragraph 18(1)(a) of the ITA. ... Canada, [5] the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) considered and set aside the concept of “a reasonable expectation of profit” [6] as a factor to consider in determining whether a business exists and expenses or losses are deductible against net sources of income. ... In Stewart, the SCC confirmed that the other factors identified in Moldowan should be considered in determining whether actions and activities that have a personal element constitute the carrying on of a business as a source of income for the purpose of the ITA. [14] The relevant factors for distinguishing elements of a personal nature from activities that are undertaken in the course of a business include: (1) the profit and loss experiences in past years; (2) the taxpayer’s training; (3) the taxpayer’s intended course of action; and (4) the capability of the venture to show a profit. [8] In Stewart, the SCC noted that those four factors are not exhaustive, and that the factors will differ with the nature and extent of the activities. [15] I will consider the factors noted above in the present case, because they are useful in determining whether the actions Mr. ...

This he cannot do and it is plain and obvious this action is doomed to fail. [4] For example, the Plaintiff collaterally attacks a previous TCC decision dismissing his tax appeals for the 2006-2010 years by alleging that the Chief Justice of the TCC that considered his tax appeal was “negligent” and “biased against him”. ... Like the 2021 Claim, and the multitude of claims brought in the Superior Court (Small Claims) this claim is vexatious, has no merit and will be struck. [17] I am also persuaded the Plaintiff is and therefore should be declared a vexatious litigant. [18] The Defendant seeks costs and I see no reason why costs should not follow the event, and in my discretion will assess reasonable costs at $1,000.00 and will order the Plaintiff to pay $1,000.00 as all inclusive costs to the Defendant forthwith, having considered and found this is an appropriate case in which to order payment forthwith.   ... Brown” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-2147-23   STYLE OF CAUSE: YEGHIA KIBALIAN v THE CROWN IN THE RIGHT OF HIS MAJESTY THE KING MOTION TO STRIKE AND DECLARE THE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULES 221 AND 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES ORDER AND REASONS: BROWN J DATED: JANUARY 29, 2024 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY: Yeghia Kibalian FOR THE PLAINTIFF ON HIS OWN BEHALF Sarah Mackenzie Wendy J. ...

The respondent adds a request for an Order that regularizes the fact that a single notice of appeal was filed in respect of two different matters that were before the Tax Court. [4] I have also received and considered the appellant’s reply to the respondent’s submissions on the motion, as well as a letter requesting an extension of time to file an amended reply and permission to file an additional affidavit on this motion. ... Having considered this argument, I have concluded that the appellant’s affidavit #2 should not be disregarded. ... By Order dated May 12, 2023, having received and considered the parties’ input, the Court put in place a timetable of steps in the appeal, and ordered the respondent to prepare the appeal book. ...

While the multiplicity of transactions does not of itself determine that they were operations in a scheme of profit-making, it has been held that it may be an important factor when considered in the light of the surrounding circumstances. I am not persuaded that, so considered, the transactions entered into by the respective appellants were not numerous. ... The mortgages were not the kind that would be considered for investment purposes by a person who was primarily concerned with a return of his money by way of interest. ...

It was alleged that the heating system, which consisted of a large grill coming up from the furnace and situated in the centre of the house only, would have to be changed at considerable cost before alterations to the building could be considered. ... There was an agreement between the parties that the fair market value of the property on December 31, 1971, was $19,500 should the transaction be considered in the nature of capital. ... The property was considered by the appellant as a good site for a townhouse. ...

—Should the shareholders’ loan accounts be considered at all as a credit in making any assessment? —Should the $8,285 (considered to be the cost of the share) have been charged to the company surplus rather than to the shareholders’ accounts? ... —Should the company gain (if any) be considered as only the increase in value between 1967 and 1973? ...