Search - considered

  [1]      The issue in this case is whether the appeal filed by the Appellant in relation to the assessment of her 2001 taxation year should be quashed on the basis that the claim made by the Appellant for a medical expense tax credit in 2001 was based on an amount that had already been considered by this Court in a decision rendered in 2005 in relation to a claim for a medical expense tax credit claimed by the Appellant in 2000 ... The Appellant cannot treat the amount paid on the first mortgage as a separate amount paid as it is related to the acquisition of the same condominium that was the subject of the earlier proceeding in this Court and this amount was already included in the purchase price of $302,000 that was considered by Justice Paris ...

    [6]      The first question that needs to be considered with respect to this issue is whether the assessment did in fact impose GST on the settlement amount, or a portion of it. ...   [18]     With this assumption being successfully refuted, it remains to be considered what adjustment should be made for GST with respect to non-resident revenues. ...

Therefore the forfeited shares should be considered a business‑related expense and not be included in his net worth. ... The appellant submits that forfeiture, under the provisions of the Criminal Code can be considered as an expense because expenses are incident to carrying on a business and an order of forfeiture is a risk in this particular kind of business. ...

Orsini was rendered after April 1997, hence the commencement day is considered to be November 23, 1998, for the purposes of paragraph (a) of the definition of "commencement day" in subsection 56.1(4) of the Income Tax Act (the " Act "). ... Finally, since under paragraph (b) of this definition the commencement day is the earliest of the days mentioned in subparagraphs (b)(i) to (b)(iv), November 23, 1998, must be considered to be the commencement day. [13]     Therefore, under both paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) of the definition, the commencement day is November 23, 1998. [14]     Where a child support amount is paid in accordance with an agreement or order having a commencement day after April 1997, the consequences are that the former spouse who is the recipient of the support so paid in the course of a year does not have to include any amount in income under paragraph 56(1)(b) of the Act and the former spouse required to pay child support cannot deduct under paragraph 60(b) of the Act the amount of such support paid during the year. [15]     In view of the above, Ms. ...

It sets out the four tests of control, ownership of tools, chance of profit or risk of loss and integration, to be considered in finding the distinction between employee and independent contractor. ... The most that can be said is that control will no doubt always have to be considered, although it can no longer be regarded as the sole determining factor; and that factors, which may be of importance, are such matters as whether the man performing the services provides his own equipment, whether he hires his own helpers, what degree of financial risk he takes, what degree of responsibility for investment and management he has, and whether and how far he has an opportunity of profiting from sound management in the performance of his task.                                                  ...

("Thiro") required he work at a construction site located in Sarnia, Ontario from September 2001 until April 2002, inclusively; g)          the amount of expenses claimed by the Appellant as stated in paragraph 3 herein were composed of the following:             Expense        2001        2002 Automobile $1,720 $1,100 Food, beverage 1,000    (½) 550    (½) Lodging 3,240 1,840 Total expenses $5,960 $3,490 h)          the Appellant maintained temporary accommodation in Timmins and Sarnia while working for Comstock and Thiro during the time periods referred to in subparagraphs 9(e) and 9(f) herein; i)           the Appellant commuted between the Residence in Sudbury and the temporary accommodation as referred to in subparagraph 9(h) herein, the automobile expenses as claimed by the Appellant and stated in subparagraph 9(g) herein were incurred in regard to travel between said Residence and said temporary accommodations and the Appellant did not travel between construction sites during working hours; j)           the amounts claimed for food, beverages and lodging as stated in subparagraph 9(g) herein were incurred with respect to the cost of accommodation in Sarnia and Timmins and cost of food and beverages consumed during the Appellant's stay at said locations; and k)          the construction sites as referred to hereinbefore are considered to be the 'employer's place of business' during the time periods when the Appellant was working at said sites. [4]      While the Appellant worked at various sites for several employers, only two sites are in question, Thiro in Sarnia, and Comstock in Timmins. ... It is defined in paragraph 32(c) of the Minister's IT-522R as follows: 32(c)     "place of business" generally is considered to have reference to a permanent establishment of the employer such as an office, factory, warehouse, branch or store, or to a field office at a large construction job. [5]      Thiro is a Quebec corporation, permanently established in the Provinceof Quebec. ...

Perka et al. in which the court considered the defence of duress or necessity in relation to a charge of importing marijuana.  ... The appellant's argument concerning the definition of personal or living expenses in subsection 248(1) of the Act fails to take into account that the definition is not an exhaustive one, but that the particular expenses listed are included in the category of expenses which are considered personal or living expenses.  ...

In this case, the amount paid would be considered support payments and could be deductible under paragraph 60(b) of the Act. [14]     On one hand, the Appellant's son was of age in 2001. ... No. 411 (Q.L.). [15]     On the other, there is no judgment or written agreement between the parties that sets out the amount of the payment in question and that the payments made to the son were to be considered as support received by the mother. [16]     For these reasons, the appeals must be denied. ...

Accordingly, (a)       Lincoln is not to be considered a cohabiting spouse and his net income should not be included in the calculation of the Family Net Income for CCTB for the 2000, 2001 and 2002 base taxation years within the meaning of section 122.6 of the Act; (b)      Lincoln should not be considered a qualified relation and his net income should be included in the calculation of the Family Net Income for GSTC for the 2000, 2001 and 2002 base taxation years within the meaning of section 122.5 of the Act; (c)      the Appellant was not overpaid CCTC totalling $4,634.67, and GSTC totalling $1,161.21, both in respect of the 2000, 2001 and 2002 base taxation years; and (d)      the Appellant is entitled to claim the wholly dependent person amount in respect of one of her children in the 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxation years. ...

The relevant part of the definition is reproduced below: 122.6 "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,... and for the purpose 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 prescribed circumstances, and (h) prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing; [16]     Section 6302 of the Income Tax Regulations establishes the factors referred to in paragraph (h) of the definition of "eligible individual" in section 122.6 of the Act.            6302. For the purposes of paragraph (h) of the definition "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 hygienic 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. [17]     The specific issue is whether the son, Guy Morin-Paquette, resided with his father or his mother from June 1, 2003 until the end of September of the same year. [18]     The appellant and her son clearly stated that he had lived with her during that period, whereas Alain Paquette categorically stated the opposite. ...