Search - considered

In applying the principles enunciated by Mr Justice Rand in the Thompson case (supra) to the facts of the present appeal, which are admittedly unusual, I must come to the conclusion that, for tax purposes, the appellants must be considered as residents of Canada. ... Their daily presence and regular attendance at their place of work in Canada cannot, in my opinion, be considered simply as visits. ...

There was no dispute with respect to the income and tax assessed for the other years as the opening inventory and accounts receivable as well as accounts payable were considered. ... It too must be considered as an asset. In the result, judgment will go allowing the appeal for 1973 and remitting the assessment to the respondent for reassessment to include as opening assets, accounts receivable of $2,000 and inventory of $26,000 on his reassessment on a net worth basis. ...

The lump sum of $8,000 was paid in the 1976 taxation year “on account of amounts payable periodically that were due after the date of the order (February 3, 1975) and had fallen into arrears ($4,000 for 1975 and $4,000 for 1976)”; it should therefore be considered a periodic payment; 8.6. “The specific wording in the order” cited in paragraph 6.3 above shows that these payments can properly be considered ‘periodic’ under paragraph 60(b) of the Income Tax Act since: 8.6.1. the total sum of $8,000 is subject to regular payments of $4,000 per year and, according to the judgment mentioned above, “is an allowance for the purpose of the support and maintenance” of the former spouse of the appellant; 8.6.2 “each regular payment is consistent with that purpose” and 8.6.3. ...

This argument was recently considered and rejected by the Federal Court of Appeal in Bolton v. ... Ginsberg) [2] where it had considered a similar argument in the context of subsection 152(1), which requires the Minister to examine a taxpayer’s income tax return “... with all due dispatch...”, and concluded that delay in doing so by the Minister could not lead to the result that he lost the jurisdiction to assess, with the further result that the taxpayer would enjoy a holiday from taxation for the year in question. ...

Taylor- as he then was- of the Tax Review Board considered the case of a taxpayer who had not reported certain income and, as a result, was facing penalties imposed by the Minister. ... Such professional help may be one point to be considered along with other factors such as the taxpayer’s own conduct, competence and contact in the preparation of the return; the complexity of the return; the practicality of any review; and the extent of such review before filing. ...

Section 118.4: Nature of Impairment (1) For the purposes of subsection 6(16), sections 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection, (a) an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or can reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months; (b) an individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living; (c) a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means (i) perceiving, thinking and remembering, (ii) feeding and dressing oneself, (iii) speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiarwith the individual, (iv) hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with theindividual, (v) eliminating (bowel or bladder functions),or (vi) walking; and (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. ... Paragraph 118.4(l)(d) of the Act states that working, housekeeping or social or recreational activities shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living. ...

., followed the correct procedures, considered all the relevant facts and law, etc. ... Deakin fully considered Mr. Curzon’s submissions and arrived at a decision supported by the evidence; that Mr. ...

I have read and considered the definition of “single family residence” set out in clause l(l)(ja) of the Act. ... I have read and considered the definitions of “non- resident corporation” and “non-resident person” set out respectively in clauses 1(1)(f) and (g) of the Act and each of the following persons to whom or in trust for whom the land is being conveyed in the above-described con- veyance is a “non- resident corporation” or a “non-resident person” as set out in the Act. (...) ...

(C) … for the purposes of computing the tax payable under this Part by the individual for the year, there may be deducted an amount determined by the formula A X $3,236 where A is the appropriate percentage for the year. 118.4(1) For the purposes of sections... and 118.3, (a) a person shall be considered to have a severe and prolonged impairment only if by reason thereof he is markedly restricted in his activities of daily living and the impairment has lasted or can reasonably be expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months; and (b) the Minister may obtain the advice of the Department of National Health and Welfare as to whether a person has a severe and prolonged impairment. For 1991 and 1992 these provisions read: 118.3(1) Where (a) an individual has a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment, (a.1) the effects of the impairment are such that the individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted, (a.2)... for the purposes of computing the tax payable under this Part by the individual for the year, there may be deducted an amount determined by the formula AX $4,118 where A is the appropriate percentage for the year. 118.4(1) For the purposes of... sections 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection, (a) an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or may reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months; (b) an individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living; (c) a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means (i) perceiving, thinking and remembering, (ii) feeding and dressing oneself; (iii) speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual, (iv) hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with the individual, (v) eliminating (bowel or bladder functions), or (vi) walking; and (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. ...

The two relevant provisions of the Act read as follows: Subparagraph 256(1)(b): For the purposes of this Act, one corporation is associated with another in a taxation year if at any time in the year, (b) both of the corporations were controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever, by the same person or group of persons; Subsection 256(5.1): For the purposes of this Act, where the expression “controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever,” is used, a corporation shall be considered to be so controlled by another corporation, person or group of persons (in this subsection referred to as the “controller”) at any time where, at that time, the controller has any direct or indirect influence that, if exercised, would result in control in fact of the corporation, except that, where the corporation and the controller are dealing with each other at arm’s length and such influence is derived from a franchise, licence, lease, distribution, supply or management agreement or other similar agreement or arrangement, the main purpose of which is to govern the relationship between the corporation and the controller regarding the manner in which a business carried on by the corporation is to be conducted, the corporation shall not be considered to be controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever, by the controller by reason only of such agreement or arrangement. ...