Search - considered

"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 purposes of this definition, (f) where a 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; [12]     Section 6302 of the Income Tax Regulations sets out the factors referred to in paragraph (h) of the definition of "eligible individual": 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. [13]     Based on the evidence, it is indisputable that, despite the considerable distance between herself and her daughter during the period in issue, the Appellant was largely responsible for her daughter's upbringing. ...

The Queen: [5]         The legal issue in this case has been considered many times by the Tax Court. In all of those cases, except the one now under review, the phrase "as recorded by a pharmacist" was considered to be an essential element of paragraph 118.2(2)(n); see Poesiat Canada, [2003 DTC 4031] T.C.J. ...

" (the "Business"); (admitted) (c)         The Appellant's spouse looked after the Business's accounting; (admitted) (d)         In his income tax return for the 2002 taxation year, the Appellant declared the following income: DESCRIPTION Interest/Investment income Gross business revenue Net business revenue Total $49,336 2002 $595 $33,750 $34,345 (admitted) (e)         During an audit of a third-party, one of the Minister's auditors noted that the Appellant had acquired, during the 2002 taxation year, a motor vehicle (the "Vehicle"); (admitted) (f)          The Appellant purchased this vehicle in cash; (admitted) (g)         In consideration of the preceding, the Minister's auditor involved in the Appellant's file (the "Auditor"), proceeded using the indirect net worth method to perform the audit; (admitted) (h)         Using the indirect net worth audit method, the auditor determined that the following income had not been declared for the 2001, 2002 and 2003 taxation years (see attached itemizations): Year 2001 2002 2003 Amount $8,881 $55,079 $1,056 (denied) MOTOR VEHICLE (i)          During the audit, the Appellant mentioned that he did not own a motor vehicle; (admitted) (j)          Following that, the auditor presented to the Appellant a copy of a purchase contract for a motorized camper; (admitted) (k)         The contract was in the Appellant's name; (admitted) (l)          The contract stated that the Appellant had traded in another motor vehicle, a 1989 Ford Sterling, and paid $55,000 in cash; (admitted) (m)        Since the Appellant affirmed that he did not own a motor vehicle and that he did not have any cash at the beginning of the audit period, the amount of $55,079 was considered to be undeclared business income from his 2002 taxation year; (admitted) [4]      To justify the penalty, the Minister made the following assumptions of fact: (a)         The Appellant's spouse looked after the accounting; (admitted) (b)         The Appellant had been in business for a long time; (admitted) (c)         The Appellant knew that he had use care in completing his tax return; (admitted) (d)         The Appellant changed his version of the facts over the course of the audit; (admitted) (e)         The adjustment was high relative to the income declared by the Appellant for the 2002 taxation year: (denied) Description Undeclared income Declared income Percentage 2002 $55,079 $34,345 160% [5]      In support of his appeal, the Appelant essentially argued that he generally kept money in his safety deposit box, a habit that he had inherited from his father. [6]      To explain the cash payment for the acquisition of the recreational vehicle, he filed a document listing the various operations that allegedly enabled him, over the years, to accumulate the substantial amounts kept in cash in a safety deposit box. ... Generally speaking, he would acknowledge certain facts once the investigator showed that the initial version was completely implausible. [9]      To validate or improve the plausibility of his explanations, it would have been important, if not fundamental, for the Appellant to completely demonstrate his accumulation of wealth over the course of the period considered; in other words, it was not sufficient to gather a listing of certain profitable transactions to demonstrate the possibility that he accumulated capital over the years that would enable him to acquire the recreational vehicle. [10]     The transactions listed show profits. ...

The first condition for an individual to be considered an “eligible individual” is stated in paragraph (a) of the definition of this expression which requires that this individual “reside with the dependent”. ... All things considered, residence implies a certain constancy, a certain regularity or else a certain permanence according to a person’s usual lifestyle in relation to a given place and is to be distinguished from what might be called visits or stays for specific purposes or of a sporadic nature. ...

Apparently, the Appellant had been considered an employee prior to the year 2003 and he had been contributing to EI and CPP as required. ... The Payor must have considered the Appellant as an employee because he identified him as manager on a business card notwithstanding that his testimony was that he wanted the Appellant to be an independent contractor and instructed him to get a GST number. ...

(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. Section 6302 of the Income Tax Regulations: 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 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. [4]      Both Ms. ...

His cost of goods sold, specifically purchases, for the years 1993 and 1994, as he had recorded them, were considered by the GST auditor to be correct. ... Moreover, by that time the trial judge had considered and dismissed the Appellant's motion to have the Judgment amended under the slip rule. ...

The following statement by the respected author, Vern Krishna, in The Fundamentals of Canadian Income Tax, Seventh Edition, is a clear answer to the Appellant's counsel's submission that the purpose of the legislation must be considered when interpreting it:             To summarize: the purpose rule is not a substitute for the plain meaning rule. ... The efforts the Appellant made with the former Chief cannot be considered employment under any express or implied contract of service. ...

The Court of Appeal directed as follows: It will be open to the parties to adduce further evidence of the market value of taxi licence rentals and about any other matters that are considered advisable. [5]      Pursuant to the direction of the Court of Appeal a further hearing took place on April 6, 2004. ... In those circumstances, despite the failure of counsel for the Respondent to object to the affidavit, I considered it unsafe to rely on the document. [13]     As noted earlier in these Reasons, Mr. ...

(d)         for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living. [8]      Paraphrasing the above and applying it to the facts at hand, Ms. ... This does not mean, however, that the Court can ignore the exclusionary language in s. 118.4(d) which states that "for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living. ...