Search - considered

(denied) Only the occupant of 2219, whose unit needed less significant repairs, remained in the unit throughout the entire renovation period; (admitted)   (i)                   The cost of the renovations was 1.75 times higher than the purchase price for the building; (no knowledge)   (j)                  The amounts of $44,899 for 2004, $41,885 for 2005, and $85,952 for 2006 claimed by the appellant under the "maintenance and repairs" item were disallowed because they were capital expenditures; (admitted)   (k)                The consulting engineer's, architect's and notary's fees concerning the loan for renovations, totalling $8,922 for 2004, were also considered to be capital expenditures; (admitted)   (l)                   The auditor also reconciled the amortization schedule for each building and granted the following deductions to the appellant as capital cost allowance: (admitted)              2004         2005         2006 2219-2225 Bardy $3,809 $2,543 $9,556 669 4th Avenue $0 $1,103 $2,161 Total              $3,809 $3,646 $11,717   [5]               Paragraph 6(f) of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal was denied because the problems with the building were noticed not when it was purchased but rather within the year following the purchase. ... Such expenditures cannot in any way be considered as being for minor repairs or regular maintenance. ...

I adopt the words of Jackett, CJ, in giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Hiwako Investments Limited v Her Majesty The Queen, [1978] CTC 378 at 380; 78 DTC 6281 at 6282: I do not read the evidence in this case as being open to an inference that a prospect of re-sale at a profit was a motivating reason for the purchase.... and again at 381 [6283]: 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 advancement of value by realizing a security, or is it a gain made on the operation of business in carrying out a scheme of profit making. ... Since the plaintiff could not be characterized as a trader, it is of course very important to determine whether or not it could be considered as having been engaged in an adventure or concern in the nature of trade.... ...

Jones was told by the auditor that her daughter was considered old enough to stay home alone after school and that child care was not needed for that portion of the day. ... The judge considered all the circumstances and concluded that the taxpayer's purpose in enrolling the child in the school was for child care and that the educational aspect was incidental. [17]     The Crown in Bailey argued that the service provided by the private school was essentially education and as such the fees were subject to the exclusion for "education" in the definition of "child care expense. ...

Rudelier could be considered as a trader or speculator, that Mr. Mogul in joining in partnership with him or his company was by that association in no different position than Mr. ... It is true that the plaintiff Marvin Mogul, when considered solely in the light of his three personal transactions, can hardly be defined as a trader, but his own vast experience in real estate financing combined with his association with Nelson Rudelier, with the plaintiff Rudelier Ranches & Livestock Company Ltd. and with Burlington Finance Corp. ...

The Appellant was more interested in an investment and losses were not a factor that he considered. ... No. 775, in which a similar set of facts as those in the appeal at bar were considered whereby a property was purchased in Florida and involved the same company, Port Charlotte Home Builders R.D. ...

In the original Moldowan decision, these factors were enumerated as follows: The following criteria should be considered: the profit and loss experience in past years, the taxpayer's training, the taxpayer's intended course of action, the capability of the venture as capitalized to show a profit after capital cost allowance. ... However, these amounts must be considered in the light that the Appellant did not establish at the outset of the operation of his business that there was a reasonable expectation of profit. ...

The way in which wages are used or disposed of may be relevant or may be a factor in completing evidence, but it is certainly not determinative in itself, since all individuals are perfectly free to dispose of the money they earn through their work. [13] The evidence also showed that this Court has previously considered the appellant’s work in a judgment rendered by the Honourable Deputy Judge Cuddihy on August 23, 1996 (file No. 96-184(UI)). [14] At the time of that judgment, Ludger Després was using the “loose” lobster fishing process, that is, with individual traps. ... The appellant was entitled to have the respondent exercise his discretion neutrally and objectively, confining himself to all the facts in the single period at issue that was concerned in the assessment. [18] The discretion was exercised in a tendentious, biased way, and this Court accordingly claims the right to assess the evidence from the standpoint of a trial de novo. [19] The respondent chose not to call any witnesses, which means that the only material to be considered is the evidence consisting of the testimony of the appellant and her spouse, who, as I said, are entirely credible. ...

Issue [2] The issue is whether the Appellant should be considered as having made any payments on account of its Part I.3 tax liability for its May 31, 1990 and May 31, 1991 taxation years prior to the April 30, 1993 Notice of Assessment of the two returns. ... The 1992 instalment cannot be considered an instalment made for the 1991 Part I.3 liability, which was unknown at that time by the Minister. [20] Liability for instalment payments for the 1991 taxation year is established under paragraph 181.7(1)(a) of the Act. ...

Furthermore, the Appellant's testimony as well as his representations to Revenue Canada at various times, demonstrates that he considered the entire business as a single entity and a single source of income for the purposes of sections 3 and 9 of the Income Tax Act. ... Since it is fairly clear from the evidence that the taxi business was being carried on throughout 1991 by the Company and since there is no other evidence that an allowable business loss actually occurred in the Appellant's 1991 taxation year, he cannot succeed on this issue. [15]     As counsel for the Minister observed, in order to properly make such a claim, it would be necessary for the Appellant to seek to amend the Company's T2 return for the year in which the loss was crystallized before adjustments of any kind might be considered to his personal returns with respect to any ABIL which might have been sustained by the Appellant. ...

The Appellant has agreed to comply with the Minister's reversed opinion after November 6, 1996. [11] To summarize, the named individuals are not to be considered employed in insurable employment in accordance with paragraph 3(2)(c) of the Unemployment Insurance Act for 1995 and up to November 6, 1996. They are considered to be employed in insurable employment after November 6, 1996. [12] The appeal is allowed and the assessment is vacated in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment. ...