Search - considered

In making the reassessments dated October 30, 1995, for the 1992 and 1994 taxation years, the Minister considered the following facts, inter alia, to be true: (a) during the taxation years at issue, the appellant and Solange Crevier (hereinafter “the spouse”) were equal co-owners of a property located at 1554 Des Chenaies in the municipality of Boisbriand in the province of Quebec (hereinafter “the property”); (b) the property was acquired in 1988; (c) the property is a single-family home with an apartment in the basement; (d) the property has just one street address, namely the appellant’s address, 1554 Des Chenaies; (e) the following income and expenses were reported in respect of the property for the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years (a detailed account is appended hereto): 1992 1993 1994 Gross rental income $4,275 $4,800 $4,920 Rental expenses $19,805 $16,113 $14,578 Net rental loss ($15,530) ($11,313) ($9,658) (f) the appellant estimated that the basement took up one third of the total area of the property and said that the rental expenses he submitted represented one third of all the expenses for the property; (g) the appellant claimed the following proportions of the total net rental losses for the property as his net rental losses: 100 percent for the 1992 taxation year, 0 percent for the 1993 taxation year and 50 percent for the 1994 taxation year; (h) the following net losses have been reported in respect of the property since it was purchased: Year Loss reported 1988 ($7,788) 1989 ($8,480) 1990 ($8,634) 1991 ($24,914) 1992 ($15,530) 1993 ($11,232) 1994 ($9,658) (i) since the mortgage interest, property tax and insurance carrying charges alone totalled $7,536 for the 1992 taxation year, $7,622 for the 1993 taxation year and $7,409 for the 1994 taxation year, they exceeded the gross income by $3,261 in 1992, $2,822 in 1993 and $2,489 in 1994; (j) during our audit, the appellant said that he knew he would not make a profit on this investment and that the only reason he rented his basement was to help pay the mortgage; (k) the appellant filed no vouchers in support of his expense claims for the 1992 taxation year and filed only $3,000 worth of receipts for repairs for the 1994 taxation year, of each amount 50 percent was attributable to him; (l) for the taxation years at issue, the appellant created an increase in his net rental loss by claiming capital cost allowance; (m) the appellant has not shown that the sums of $13,913 for the 1992 taxation year and $4,829 for the 1994 taxation year were spent for the purpose of earning income from a business or property; (n) during the taxation years at issue, the appellant had no reasonable expectation of profit in respect of his property. 9. ... In making the reassessments dated October 30, 1995, for the 1993 and 1994 taxation years, the Minister considered the following facts, inter alia, to be true:... ...

It was on the basis of the advice from their bank manager that the Amatos acquired the Scarborough property. [5] On acquiring the property the appellants incurred additional expenses to make the property more attractive. [6] Unfortunately, from the time they bought the property until 1994 the appellants failed to show a profit from renting the property and claimed the following losses: YEAR TOTAL RENTAL LOSS EACH APPELLANT'S SHARE- 50% 1987 $ 1,478 $ 739 1988 $ 5,378 $2,689 1989 $ 2,934 $1,467 1990 $ 2,382 $1,191 1991 $ 2,196 $1,098 1992 $17,438 $8,719 1993 $18,190 $9,095 1994 $17,848 $8,924 [7] One of the assumptions of fact that the Minister considered when he made the assessments was that the Scarborough property was vacant throughout 1993 and 1994. ... 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 charging capital cost allowance. ...

There is nothing on the Court file to show that the question whether "it would be impracticable in the circumstances" or whether "exceptional circumstances" existed was considered. ... 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 charging capital cost allowance. ...

The sales comparison approach may be used to value improved properties, vacant land, or land being considered as though vacant; it is the most common and preferred method of land valuation when comparable sales data are available. [6]            Mr. ... Under this scenario, the existing improvements would probably be removed and considered to have no value. (3)            To keep the existing dwelling and subdivide the back portion of the site out for urban development. ...

London Life considered it more efficient to negotiate terms under which the landlord would provide funding to enable London Life to make the necessary leasehold improvements, rather than requiring each landlord to make the appropriate improvements. [7] The lease agreements generally provide that: · the tenant improvement allowance is being paid by the landlord as a contribution toward the cost to London Life of the leasehold improvements; · the leasehold improvements become the property of the landlord immediately upon installation; · the tenant is required to improve the leased premises to a standard in keeping with the appearance and character of a first class office building; · the tenant must submit detailed plans for improvements to the landlord for approval; · the tenant must provide evidence of a work schedule for completion of the improvements and provide a statutory declaration that the tenant’s work has been performed in accordance with the plans submitted; and · the tenant may be requested to provide details of costs incurred for completion of the tenant’s work. [8] London Life collected GST on the amount of each tenant improvement allowance paid to it by the landlords. ... The Respondent agrees that under paragraph 141.1(1)(b) supplies of personal property will not be considered to be made in the course of a commercial activity if the property was exclusively for use or consumption in non-commercial activities. ...

The amounts of income not reported were from an objective viewpoint substantial, especially if considered in terms of the income reported by the appellant for the three taxation years in question. [26] The explanations given by the appellant and his agent cannot explain, much less justify, such completely gross negligence. ... There is no need to refer to a list of precedents on the concept of gross negligence and extenuating circumstances that should be considered for the purposes of s. 163(2) of the Act when the evidence shows that a taxpayer deliberately failed to report money received that he or she knew to be taxable. ...

The losses sustained by such a taxpayer are considered to be personal or living expenses as defined in subsection 248(1) and not deductible. ... Some of the criteria to be considered are the extent of activity in relation to businesses of comparable nature and size, the amount of gross revenue from farming in relation to the relevant expenses, time spent in the operation as compared to other income earning activities, the profit and loss experience in the 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 charging capital cost allowance. ...

Those portions of section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act respecting this question read, "eligible individual" in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time (a) resides with the qualified dependant, (b) is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant, (c) is resident in Canada, (d) is not described in paragraph 149(1)(a) or (b), and (e) is, or whose cohabiting spouse is, a Canadian citizen or a person who (i) is a permanent resident (within the meaning assigned by the Immigration Act), (ii) is a visitor in Canada or the holder of a permit in Canada (within the meanings assigned by the Immigration Act) who was resident in Canada throughout the 18-month period preceding that time, or (iii) was determined before that time by the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board to be a Convention refugee, and, for the purposes of this definition, (f) where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant's female parent, the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed to be the female parent, (g) the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) does not apply in circumstances set out in regulations made by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and (h) factors to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing may be set out in regulations made by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of National Health and Welfare; "qualified dependant" at any time means a person who at that time (a) has not attained the age of 18 years, (b) is not a person in respect of whom an amount was deducted under paragraph (a) of the description of B in subsection 118(1) in computing the tax payable under this Part by the person's spouse for the base taxation year in relation to the month that includes that time, and (c) is not a person in respect of whom a special allowance under the Children's Special Allowances Act is payable for the month that includes that time. [6] Regulation 6302 is applicable after 1992. ... For the purposes of paragraph (h) of the definition of 'eligible individual' in section 122.6 of the Act, the following factors are to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant: (a) the supervision of the daily activities and needs of the qualified dependant; (b) the maintenance of a secure environment in which the qualified dependant resides; (c) the arrangement of, and transportation to, medical care at regular intervals and as required for the qualified dependant; (d) the arrangement of, participation in, and transportation to, educational, recreational, athletic or similar activities in respect of the qualified dependant; (e) the attendance to the needs of the qualified dependant when the qualified dependant is ill or otherwise in need of the attendance of another person; (f) the attendance to the hygenic needs of the qualified dependant on a regular basis; (g) the provision, generally, of guidance and companionship to the qualified dependant; and (h) the existence of a court order in respect of the qualified dependant that is valid in the jurisdiction in which the qualified dependant resides. [7] Reviewing the facts, the Court finds that both parents were equal in respect to (a) and (b). ...

R. [1] which considered Regulation   16(1)(b) and specifically the definition of “establishment in Canada” and the meaning of the words “paid at or from” the employer’s Canadian establishment ... Canada (The Minister of National Revenue), [2] the Court considered the meaning of the term of placement agency in the CPP Regulations. ...

Sheridan____________________________________________________________________   ORDER   Whereas the Appellant, Charlene Echum, applied to have the dismissal of her Informal Procedure appeals of her 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 taxation years set aside under section 18.21 of the Tax Court of Canada Act;             And having considered the factors set out in the Appellant’s letter in light of the criteria for the setting aside of an order of dismissal under paragraphs 18.21(3)(a) and (b) of the Act;             And not being satisfied that the Appellant has shown that “it would have been unreasonable in all the circumstances” for her to have attended the hearing;   IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Appellant’s application to set aside the Order dated September 15, 2011 is dismissed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Order.   ... During that time, no one appeared for the Appellant nor was any call received to explain the Appellant’s absence. [12]          It is against this backdrop that the Appellant’s failure to appear at the September 12, 2011 hearing must be considered. ...